Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Marine Safety

Mr. Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve marine safety, particularly so far as fishing boat losses are concerned.

The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): The United Kingdom has developed domestic legislation and regularly consults the fishing industry safety group about possible improvements. I expect shortly to receive reports from the marine accident investigation branch of a number of recent fishing vessel accidents. They will be studied carefully and I can assure the House that any necessary measures that are brought to our attention will be given very careful consideration.

Mr. Harris: I welcome that assurance, but does my hon. Friend accept that there is already a tremendous amount of evidence about some of the things that are clearly wrong with maritime safety? Is he aware that I have been carrying out my own investigations, including a trip through the channel? I have received a number of letters on the subject, and most people who are knowledgeable about the subject tell me—and I am sure that they are right—that the root cause is bad watchkeeping, mainly by merchant vessels but also occasionally by fishermen. Will my hon. Friend try to bring both sides together nationally—as is happening locally in Devon and Cornwall—to try to make some progress on this central issue, as well as pursuing the matter internationally?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful for the constructive way in which my hon. Friend is addressing the problem. He rightly draws attention to the fact that it is not necessarily always one side that sometimes breaches the watchkeeping agreements and regulations. We want to consider those matters, and I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's points in mind. I am about to meet him to discuss his recent trip and see whether any lessons can be learnt from it.

Dr. Godman: I know that the Minister has no direct responsibility for Ministry of Defence vessels sailing too close to fishing vessels, but may I remind him that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and I raised with the Ministry of Defence the recent incident in which a nuclear submarine surfaced within 1,000 yd of a fishing vessel, despite the promises given in the aftermath of the sinking of the Antares? Does not the hon. Gentleman

agree that it is time that we ensured that no United Kingdom registered vessel puts out to sea without carrying on board immersion suits for each and every crew member?

Mr. McLoughlin: As I have said to the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions, the matter is being evaluated and examined. I do not think that immersion suits are necessarily the answer to all the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred—indeed, they could create mobility problems for fishermen on board vessels. I understand that the Ministry of Defence is renewing guidance to commanders of submarines in transit and exercise areas.

Mr. Wolfson: On the wider issue of marine safety generally, is the Minister fully satisfied with the safety of the older types of roll on/roll off ferry?

Mr. McLoughlin: We need to ensure that all ferries come up to the standards expected under the safety of life at sea conventions.

Ms. Walley: Does the Minister agree that we return to the whole issue of ship safety at every Question Time, and that the only difference between this time and last time is that we now have recourse to information from the National Audit Office, which confirms many of the concerns which we have been expressing about ship safety, especially as it affects fishing vessels? Does the Minister agree that the time has come to take responsibility for inspections away from the Department of Transport and to place it with an independent body in which we can have confidence—the Health and Safety Executive? Is not that the only way to learn the lessons of all the tragedies that we have experienced?

Mr. McLoughlin: It is certainly true that the National Audit Office report was interesting. It was compiled largely with the help of the surveyor general's department which repeated a number of points and the NAO went through its files and noted them. We will respond in due course to the NAO report. However, it is worth quoting Lloyd's List, which does not always say how virtuous the Department of Transport is. It states:
But after reading the NAO report, it would be hard to get oneself worked up into a lather about either marine safety, or the Department of Transport's handling of it. One hopes that this does not promote complacency.
It will not.

Rail Services (North-west)

Mr. McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the future development of rail services in the north-west region.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I regularly meet the chairman to discuss current issues. I attended a meeting on 9 December last year of the north-west local authorities to discuss transport issues in the north-west.

Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister of State confirm today the Government's unwillingness to provide the £800 million necessary to upgrade the north-west main line link to ensure through trains to the channel tunnel and the continent, as requested by business men in the north-west?


If he can confirm that, is he prepared to allow British Rail an arrangement similar to that agreed last December with the TGV for a leasing arrangement so that British Rail can get on with upgrading track and machinery to ensure that the north-west can take advantage of the channel tunnel link?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that all three types of channel tunnel trains have been ordered—the inter-capital trains between London, Paris and Brussels; the night trains that will run up through the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and the day trains north of London. They are being purchased for cash—

Mr. Prescott: They are leased.

Mr. Freeman: That is because the purchase is being made with other countries. British Rail is leasing the deep-sea container wagons.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am delighted to know how many trains have been ordered. However, it seems to me sometimes that discussions with British Rail are like the chicken-and-egg when it comes to places like Lancaster. British Rail wants us to prove that there are passengers before the trains are run. How on earth can we plan ahead if we do not know whether trains will be there? I hope that BR will have a little faith in the rapidly expanding business in the north-west—we are doing remarkably well up there—and show that faith by allowing more trains to stop at Lancaster.

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will know that BR has plans to re-equip the InterCity service on the west coast main line. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on the Opposition Front Bench would share the view that InterCity services are commercial and should remain unsubsidised.

Mr. Fearn: When the Minister next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he discuss the fact that BR is about to reduce the InterCity service by 30 per cent? Cutting the trains by 30 per cent. will have a disastrous effect on the north-west. Does he agree that industry, and in particular the tourist industry, will suffer if that happens? Does he also agree that the resort of Southport along with Preston and Liverpool may suffer because of that?

Mr. Freeman: The exact timing of InterCity services is a matter for BR and not for Ministers. However. BR's investment programme under this Government has been significant. Investment is up 85 per cent. BR's investment programme is the highest for 30 years. Under Labour, BR's investment fell between 1964 and 1970 and rose by only a very small percentage between 1974 and 1979.

Mr. Burt: Will my hon. Friend congratulate all those involved with the east Lancashire railway which, with the help of £1 million worth of derelict land grant from the Government, recently concluded a deal with BR to ensure a link between its own successful enterprise and the main rail network? With the anticipated completion of the metro light rapid transit link to Bury, does he agree that the future for rail lovers and rail transport services in my constituency is very good indeed?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government have provided section 56 grant and credit approval cover to the Greater Manchester passenger

transport authority for completion of the Manchester metrolink. That is solid evidence of the Government's support for urban transport schemes.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that unless the Government take action before the general election it is likely that France will have a very large transit point on its side of the channel while on the British side there will be very little planning either for modernised rail services from London to the north-west or around London, which is vital for the north-west? If there is even further privatisation, the north-west will be left with an inferior service and very little advantage to the channel tunnel.

Mr. Freeman: British Rail's plans for channel tunnel services when they open in late summer of next year are totally financed and well advanced. If the hon. Lady's colleagues were to form the Government after the next election, the first step that they would take would be to postpone the decision on the channel tunnel rail link by setting up a commission to take six months to review a decision that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has already taken.

Airline Passengers' Compensation

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will introduce measures to require the Civil Aviation Authority to pay compensation for airline passengers whose planes are delayed for over 10 minutes after the scheduled arrival time as a result of delays caused by air traffic control.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Steen: What about the airlines? Should not they get compensation if planes are delayed because of the restrictive practices of air traffic controllers? Is not one way to get a greater quantity and quality of slots to separate the Civil Aviation Authority from National Air Traffic Services and make it an independent public utility, thereby separating the poacher-cum gamekeeper role of the Civil Aviation Authority, much as the National Rivers Authority and the water authorities are separate? Would not that be a better solution for the customer—the airline passenger—and for the airlines themselves?

Mr. Rifkind: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, obviously when aircraft are late there can be a number of reasons. It may, for example, be the action of air traffic controllers overseas that resulted in the late departure of an aircraft, for which air traffic control authorities in this country could hardly be held responsible.
On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, when the Monopolies and Mergers Commission last commented on this matter, it suggested that at some stage a review would be appropriate to look at the future combination of the Civil Aviation Authority with National Air Traffic Services. We will at some stage wish to consider that matter, but I should not like to comment on the issues at the moment. That are complex and they would need to be examined very carefully before any view could be properly expressed.

Mr. Prescott: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in 1990, at Heathrow. Gatwick, Stansted and Luton airports,


more than 26 million passengers arrived more than 15 minutes late? If the Secretary of State were even to consider paying a small compensation of £10, it would be the equivalent of £250 million, doubling the CAA's debt to the Government—that is, its borrowing requirement. Do the Government accept some responsibility in this matter, because they laid down the corporate plan in 1983 that instructed the CAA to reduce the number of air traffic controllers by more than 100 or 8 per cent., which has contributed to those people arriving late at our airports?

Mr. Rifkind: It was not clear from the hon. Gentleman's remarks whether he was pledging a future Labour Government to impose such a financial obligation on the Civil Aviation Authority. I note that he is rather coy about giving his view on that matter. He should be aware that the air traffic control system in the United Kingdom not only has the best record in Europe but has available to it massive investment which will lead to a substantial increase in the available capacity. The requirements of the Civil Aviation Authority with regard to new investment have indeed been fully met by the present Government.

Mr. Soames: While I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the plans for increased spending on air traffic control in this country, is satisfied with the political control of Eurocontrol? Is he able to tell the House when that is liable to come on stream, bearing in mind that that excellent plan will make a great difference to the convenience and safety of the travelling public?

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important matter. Of course, at a European level it is desirable to achieve better harmonisation and co-ordination of air traffic control. However, I should warn the House that I do not believe that it is appropriate to try to move towards a single air traffic control organisation. There have been too many examples of poor industrial relations, especially in France, which have led to all air traffic being cancelled. I should not like those matters to be in the control of a small number of people, who could switch off air traffic throughout Europe because of some industrial dispute. Our air traffic controllers have a superb record of service to the country. We want better harmonisation and co-ordination, but not a single uniform organisation.

Rev. Martin Smyth: We appreciate the Secretary of State's responses, but I am a little concerned that he is still thinking of considering that in the future. There are still too many delayed flights, especially from Scotland and Northern Ireland, because—we are told—of air traffic control delays. May I press the Minister to reconsider the issue—or is there a cosy relationship between the airlines and some hotels, to try to get us to stay overnight in London?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate point. It was precisely because of the undoubted congestion at Heathrow and, to a lesser extent, at Gatwick that some years ago the Government approved major investment for the CAA. Steps which are currently under way and the new investment which is being provided will in the near future allow for a substantial increase in overall air capacity in the south-east, which will help to relieve that type of congestion, to the benefit of the travelling public.

Mr. Adley: In rejecting the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), has my right hon. and learned Friend borne in mind the repercussions of the reasons that he gave for his rejection a moment ago—that someone else might be responsible? Bearing in mind that the proposals in the citizens charter for British Rail could also be subject to the same propositions—perhaps a suicide on the line or a hoax telephone call—how confident is my right hon. and learned Friend that the citizens charter will provide cast iron guidelines which will not end up in a lawyers' paradise?

Mr. Rifkind: I have always made it clear that British Rail is entitled, and indeed correct, to point out that late arrivals of trains can be due to acts of vandalism or other acts beyond its control. That is being taken into account in the preparations for the passengers charter by British Rail.

Highways (Newcastle upon Tyne)

Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the size and scope of the 1992–93 major highway programme in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): The size and scope of the 1992–93 major highway progamme in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne are matters for the city council.

Mr. Cousins: The Minister well knows that the package that Newcastle put up is good for jobs and good for people. Why then did he not give the money to enable the scheme that local people had worked out for Cradlewell in Newcastle to go ahead? There are would have been no dizzy walkways, no murky subways. An urban village centre would have been created next to a local beauty spot, preventing an important local historic monument—the Armstrong bridge—from falling down. Why did the Minister specifically pull out the money for that scheme from Newcastle's road programme?

Mr. Chope: Because the city of Newcastle council asked us to. Last year we substituted the Scotswood road improvement for the Cradlewell bypass scheme. That was supported by the city council. The hon. Gentleman referred to the need for jobs and prosperity in Newcastle. The best way to bring those about is to ensure first-class road communications to Newcastle. His party is proposing to put in jeopardy our upgrading of the A1 to motorway standard.

Mr. Amos: Does my hon. Friend accept that since 1979 the Government have spent and planned to spend nearly £600 million on road construction and maintenance in the north-east? The north-east has done very well out of the Government, although we need to dual the A69 west of Hexham. Does he not accept that the demands of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) for more road building sit oddly with those of his Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who would put a moratorium on all new road building?

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government are committed to further investment in the road infrastructure in the north-east. Indeed, we have a


trans-Pennine study on links between the north-east and north-west. The outcome of that study will inform further investment decisions in the future.

Bedfordshire County Council

Mr. Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he plans to meet Bedfordshire county council to discuss the future development of transport in the county; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Freeman: I met representatives of Bedfordshire county council on 29 January to discuss proposals for the future use of the Luton to Dunstable corridor.

Mr. Madel: My hon. Friend will be aware that great progress has been made on bypass construction since 1979. Will my hon. Friend's Department give full support to keeping the Bedford to Bletchley line open, reopening the Luton to Dunstable line and to creating a new terminus south of Luton so that Bedfordshire can benefit when the channel tunnel is opened?

Mr. Freeman: First, I know of no plans to close the Bedford to Bletchley line. The rolling stock is aging, and British Rail is considering the introduction of modern rolling stock on that line. My hon. Friend has been assiduous in promoting a scheme to reuse the Luton-Dunstable line and I very much hope that that scheme comes to fruition. A diesel shuttle service from Luton to Dunstable would run on a track that is currently not used and that service would bring great benefits. As to the channel tunnel terminal, British Rail has no plans to have other than King's Cross as its London terminus. Services on the midlands and the east coast main lines would depend upon electrification, but I know that British Rail will seriously consider running channel tunnel services when there is proper demand.

Uninsured Drivers

Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's estimate of the number of uninsured drivers.

Mr. Chope: In 1989 there were 208,010 convictions in England and Wales for uninsured driving. It is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the total number of offences committed.

Mr. French: Is my hon. Friend aware that the failure of some motorists to have any insurance cover results in higher premiums being paid by other motorists who abide by the law? Does he agree that the compulsory display of insurance discs on vehicle windscreens would help to reduce evasion in this country, as it has done in others?

Mr. Chope: Certainly, driving without insurance is a serious offence and others end up having to pay for the wrong-doers. That is why the Government have increased, by legislation, the maximum penalty from £1,000 to £5,000. The courts can also order disqualification. My hon. Friend's suggestion might result in less evasion, but there are 140,000 convictions each year for failing to display the road fund licence. If we proceed along the lines my hon. Friend suggests we would need the support and encouragement of the insurance industry. I intend to meet representatives of that industry to discuss my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Gregory: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he assure the House that he will have urgent discussions with the Lord Chancellor not only about the derisory fines that magistrates can impose, but about the fact that, in the past two years, many magistrates, not least in York, have never imposed the maximum fine on those who have been caught for not insuring their vehicles? Such an urgent meeting is called for, if we are to have safety on the roads.

Mr. Chope: There are regular meetings between my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and the Magistrates Association. The subject could be brought up at the next meeting.

MV Derbyshire

Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representation and correspondence he has received from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers on the sinking of MV Derbyshire.

Mr. McLoughlin: I have received two written representations from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers on the sinking of MV Derbyshire. I will be responding to those representations shortly.

Mr. Loyden: The Minister will be aware that the information gathered by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers confirmed the long-held view that there is a structural fault in the design of bulk carriers? Is he aware that the lives of more than 300 seafarers have been lost in the past two years because of the loss of 21 bulk carriers? When will the Government face up to their responsibility? How many more lives will be lost before the Government recognise that the Secretary of State should use his discretionary powers to reopen an inquiry into the Derbyshire and the wider implications of its loss?

Mr. McLoughlin: Structural failure was fully investigated and examined by the formal investigation which was ordered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. The formal investigation for which the hon. Gentleman is pressing has been held, but, because he is unhappy with the answers that that inquiry came up with, he wants another.

Liverpool Street-Chelmsford Rail Service

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will pay an official visit to Chelmsford using the rail service provided from Liverpool Street station to Chelmsford.

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will recall that I visited Chelmsford with him just over a year ago. The line to Chelmsford is benefiting from a continuing programme of investment which has recently included new trains and the splendid refurbishment of Liverpool Street station. Future investment will include major resignalling works, including works in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. My constituents welcome the fact that £1 million a day is being invested in Network SouthEast, but they are still concerned about the punctuality and cleanliness of trains. Will my hon. Friend use his influence to ensure that


the citizens charter allows compensation for rail users who do not get a good service, apart from when vandals or adverse weather conditions affect that service? So far, British Rail has not been capable of issuing its own scheme, and getting compensation out of British Rail is like getting blood out of a stone.

Mr. Freeman: I can confirm that British Rail will publish its rail passengers charter shortly. Performance targets will be set for all 15 Network SouthEast lines, including the Great Eastern line, and those targets include punctuality and reliability. Although a comprehensive scheme of compensation will be set up, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the targets should be there primarily as an incentive to British Rail to perform well, given the investment that it has made, rather than to provide, automatically and at great cost, compensation to passengers, particularly as the money would have to come out of British Rail's pocket.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister remember the Adjournment debate on 7 June last year, when I pointed out that at the key junction of Stratford, at this very line, it is not just Great Eastern that will be responsible for the trains? There will also be the north-west region of Network SouthEast, Regional Railways, InterCity, Train Load Freight, Freightliner, International Ferry and Freight, the docklands light railway and London Underground. At the moment, there are also plans, through crossrail, to have trains coming from the Thames valley, the Chilterns and the channel tunnel. Will not all these profit centres and ownerships of coaches and wagons mean that even the fattest of fat controllers will not be able to sort out the quarrels over profits and that these bodies will be quarrelling all the way to Marsham street?

Mr. Freeman: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism. He did not mention what will be possibly the most important project over the next few years to affect Stratford—the Jubilee line. I hope that the relevant Bill will receive approval in another place shortly and then Royal Assent. Stratford will indeed be an important terminal, but British Rail has plans to modernise the station and in the 21st century it will become one of the most important rail terminals in western Europe.

British Rail (Labour Statistics)

Mr David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were employed by British Rail in (a) 1979 and (b) 1991.

Mr. Rifkind: The total number of British Railway Board employees at 31 March 1991 was 136,277. The number employed at 31 March 1979 was 244,084.

Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he agree that greater efficiency and more taxpayers' money still produce a rotten service? When will the taxpayer and the paying public get better value for that money? When will the Secretary of State sack the chairman of British Rail and his management for incompetence? The nation wants to know and, frankly, so do I.

Mr. Rifkind: British Rail has improved the quality of its performance over the years in many ways, but at the same time other parts of the railway network require

considerable further improvement. I have full confidence in Sir Bob Reid as chairman of British Rail. He has an enormously difficult task to do, to turn around an organisation that, over the years, has been bureaucratic and not sufficiently sensitive to the needs of the travelling public. The reforms that he has introduced and the further reforms that the Government will bring forward will transform our railways. I am delighted that, even in recent years, it has been possible to say, once again, that the railways of the United Kingdom are expanding, contrary to the experience under a Labour Government.

Mr. Snape: Does the Minister accept that the figures that he has given to the incoherent hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) amount to a reduction in staff of 28 per cent? The key factor on which he should concentrate is that British Rail's external financing limit has been reduced under this Administration by 32 per cent. since 1979. The only area in which there has been an increase since the Conservatives were elected, other than productivity is that of fares, where there has been an increase in real terms of 18 per cent. I ask the Secretary of State to assure the House that he has no plans to offer the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield a job as a station announcer at any railway station in the area which I represent.

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about investment in our railways, he will hear today, and again and again, the following figures. Between 1951 and 1964, under a Conservative Government, rail investment increased by 29 per cent. Between 1964 and 1970, under a Labour Government it fell by 57 per cent. Between 1970 and 1974, under a Conservative Government, it rose by 48 per cent. Between 1974 and 1979, under a Labour Government it rose by only 13 per cent. Under this Government it has risen by no less than 85 per cent.

Citizens Charter

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement as to the effect of the citizens charter on British Rail's operations.

Mr. Freeman: The citizens charter is about raising standards and making public services more responsive to their customers. The British Rail passengers charter will set out a number of initiatives to give greater impetus to the efforts that BR has already made in this direction.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: For passengers from Carlisle to London, is not the reality of the passengers charter likely to be that rail fares will increase, that journeys set out on the timetable will be cancelled and that some journeys will be lengthened, all this being part of a desperate attempt by British Rail to claw back the £40 million that they will probably need to pay compensation to passengers? Given the way that the charter has been presented to Parliament, is not it a political gimick?

Mr. Freeman: As for £40 million, that is the hon. Gentleman's figure. British Rail paid out between £6 million and £7 million last year in compensation. We have no plans to be associated with any scheme that involves significant costs. That would not be sensible. It is sensible to have performance targets that British Rail will strive to meet, and there will be proper compensation where those


targets are not met. The hon. Gentleman adopts a negative approach to improving the quality of service that is provided by British Rail. Indeed, there have been no positive proposals from the Opposition about improving the quality of British Rail services.

Mr. Butler: Is not it indicative of British Rail's problem of being too producer-oriented that it confronts the problem of compensation by floating the idea that it will have to increase fares rather than increase efficiency?

Mr. Freeman: Quite right. We want British Rail to take very much further some of the initiatives on which it has already embarked in trying to be more responsive to customer demand. It should be not a producer or engineer-led industry but one that is responsive to what passengers want in terms of price and time of service.

Mr. Prescott: Is the Minister aware that British Rail's charter was promised by the Prime Minister in August for December, and that it is now two months late? The Government are hardly setting a good example for British Rail. Will he confirm that the definition of lateness adopted by British Rail and the Government, which was changed from five minutes to 10 minutes in the 1980s, is already being considered and that compensation will be paid only to those whose trains are over one hour late? As the Government have made it clear that compensation will be available only to season ticket holders and those who book their seats, six out of 10 passengers on a train will have no entitlement to compensation. That shows that there will be first-class and second-class compensation schemes. Surely it would have been better to use the compensation moneys—the Government have pinched another idea of ours, leasing trains—and lease the 40-year-old north Kent trains, it being clear that the passengers prefer a new and reliable train rather than being paid compensation

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman has not read the charter, so I am not sure how he can criticise it. The reason that the Government, together with British Rail, have taken great trouble over the passengers charter—and why, therefore, it is later than originally forecast—is that it is now better than was forecast in the White Paper last summer. The hon. Gentleman should wait and see what it says.
On leasing, BR has been leasing wagons, locomotives and other services for years, and where it is appropriate it will continue to do so.

Red Routes

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the public response to his recently announced Londonwide red route consultation proposals.

Mr. Rifkind: I announced my proposals for the composition of the red route network in London on 22 January and will be considering the responses I receive by 31 March.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the pilot scheme has been a spectacular success, with about a one third reduction in the number of accidents on the red routes compared with a 12 per cent. average reduction for Greater London? Will he assure us

that he will stick robustly to the outline suggestions in the consultation paper? Will he think about the continuing problem, however, of parking abuse by private motorists on the red routes? Those cars must be clamped quickly to deter their owners from parking there.

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend, in particular about enforcement of the red routes being crucial to their success. My hon. Friend was right to refer to the enormous improvement in safety on the red routes. During the pilot scheme, there was a fall in the number of personal injury accidents of 33 per cent., at a time when accidents elsewhere in London had also fallen, but by only 10 per cent. It is clear that the red routes are making a significant contribution to saving lives and to preventing serious injuries.

Ms. Ruddock: Did not the Secretary of State say that red routes would not encourage cars, but would help buses, lorries and the environment? How does he explain that the pilot scheme results show an 11 per cent. decrease in the number of heavy goods vehicles, but an overall increase in traffic of 11 per cent? There was no decrease in local traffic. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that, in his proposed 300 miles of network, 30 per cent. will have no local bus services and that the Government do not intend to make any new money available for the essential traffic-calming and safety measures that need to be implemented with the red routes?
Do not the results of the pilot scheme guarantee a hostile reaction to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's consultation document, as exemplified by the Tory council of Kingston upon Thames, whose committee chairman said that the red routes were wholly inappropriate to local traffic problems? Will not—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please be brief.

Ms. Ruddock: Will the Secretary of State now abandon that failed experiment and adopt Labour's policy, which is to turn red routes into green routes, where buses and the environment will truly have priority?

Mr. Rifkind: I have no intention of abandoning a policy which is already saving lives and preventing people, including children, from being injured. The hon. Lady was wrong in what she said, because the evidence suggests that more people are travelling by bus and that there has been an increase on certain routes. In addition, bus journeys are being completed considerably more quickly than before. The hon. Lady's facts are based on a misunderstanding of the position.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Prosecution Policy (Burglary)

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Attorney-General when he next intends to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss prosecution policy in the case of burglary.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I am pleased to have appointed an excellent new Director of Public Prosecutions. The Crown prosecution service policies are regularly reviewed, but it is too soon to fix an agenda for our first meeting.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why is it that the thief Mr. David Clare, who stole thousands of pounds worth of equipment from offices in the House of Commons, was not prosecuted? Is not it true that the police caution procedure used in that case means that that person will not have a publicly available criminal record? Is that the position?

The Attorney-General: The decision to caution Mr. Clare was taken by the Metropolitan police in the exercise of its discretion. That practice has long existed as an alternative to taking criminal proceedings. The advice of the CPS was not sought and I do not know what it would have been. It is worth commenting that the CPS, in its evidence to the Royal Commission on criminal justice, proposed that the caution procedure be placed on a statutory basis.

Mr. John Morris: Will the Attorney-General convey our good wishes to the new Director of Public Prosecutions, who is a lady with energy and independence of thought? Will he assure the House that some lessons have been learnt from the time-consuming process of her appointment, in respect of her successor? Will the new Director of Public Prosecutions be able to take up her post meantime?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's welcome to Mrs. Mills, which I will gladly convey to her. I thought it right that there should be an open advertisement and an open competition for that very important job, and that process proceeded as fast as possible. Mrs. Mills will remain in charge of the Serious Fraud Office until her successor in that post is appointed and that, too, will proceed as fast as possible. I hope very much that a successor will be in place by the end of March.

Royal Commission on Criminal Justice

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Attorney-General if he has plans to submit further evidence to the Royal Commission on criminal justice.

The Attorney-General: I have no plans to submit further evidence to the Royal Commission on criminal justice.

Mr. Mullin: I read the Attorney-General's very modest submission on a very narrow point and also the evidence given by the police and the Home Office to the royal commission, and was left with the impression that the royal commission had been established because of public concern that too many guilty people were walking free. Does the Attorney-General, with his long experience, have any thoughts about what it is that is wrong with the legal system that led to the miscarriages of justice that have occurred? If so, does he have any suggestions for doing anything?

The Attorney-General: I, too, read my modest submission to the royal commission again this afternoon. I thought that it was rather good, so perhaps it was not as modest as all that.
The guidelines laid down by my predecessor for the disclosure of unused material in the possession of the prosecution have been greatly extended by recent case law. However, they remain uncertain—or perhaps they remain in consequence uncertain. I proposed to the royal

commission that they should have a statutory basis, because there is uncertainty as to what constitutes the prosecution in that context and as to what constitutes unused material, and about a number of other matters. The hon. Gentleman invites me to embark on a debate on which you, Mr. Speaker, would not be terribly keen—even though I have already lost two of the 10 minutes in which, every three weeks, I am entitled to stretch my gauzy wings.

Mr. Fraser: The Attorney-General knows that the royal commission is willing to consider remunerating legal aid practitioners in magistrates courts to avoid miscarriages of justice. Why does not the Attorney-General submit that issue to the royal commission?

The Attorney-General: The royal commission has rather a lot on its plate already.

Mr. Skinner: Fly

The Attorney-General: I am anxious that the royal commission should not only fly but arrive, and in reasonable time.

Marquis de Sade

Mr. Hind: To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 23 January, Official Report, column 269, how many representations he has received concerning the publication of further works of the Marquis de Sade in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Since 23 January, I have received two letters on the topic of "Juliette" from hon. Members, but none relating to any other work by the same author.

Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. and learned Friend look again at the book "Juliette"? As a member of the Bar myself, I found it difficult to understand why a book that combines the subjects of heterosexual activity with those of children, torture and violence is not considered obscene. If my right hon. and learned Friend wants an independent but much cheaper legal opinion than that which he is receiving from the Crown prosecution service, I shall be more than willing to provide him with one—to prosecute Arrow Books for publishing that work.

The Solicitor-General: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that offer. The Director of Public Prosecutions' decision was taken after careful consideration and with the benefit of advice of junior and senior Treasury counsel of great experience. In their view, on all the evidence—including that relating to the statutory defences, but not confined to them—there is insufficient evidence to offer a realistic prospect of conviction.

Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that most of us who have looked at this thing find it absolutely incomprehensible that the book has not been the subject of a prosecution? If the director's decision is correct, does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the law needs re-examining?

The Solicitor-General: That is not a matter for me, but it may assist my hon. Friend to know that a number of successful prosecutions are brought every month under the legislation in relation to the type of material that is more normally associated with the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

Lord Chancellor's Department (Staffing)

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General what are the implications for the level of staffing of the Lord Chancellor's Department after 1 April of the transfer of responsibilities in relation to finance, organisation and management of the magistrates courts.

The Solicitor-General: About 50 staff will transfer from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department following the forthcoming transfer of responsibilities in relation to the magistrates courts which will take place on 1 April.

Mr. Dalyell: To allow those concerned to "stretch their gauzy wings", will the extra Minister involved help them to make up their minds about whether the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General are on the side of the senior officials of the Home Office and the Metropolitan police? Some of us are very concerned about Mrs. Stella Rimington's efforts to expand into entirely new areas, which have hitherto been the responsibility of the Home Office and the police—very sensitive areas of investigation for MI5. Should not Parliament know more about a lady who really was the sub-puppet mistress in relation to many of the evil things that happened, via the security forces, during the miners' strike?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has expanded his question a good deal beyond its original ambit. Whatever the answer to that interesting point, it is unlikely that the work of the magistrates court will be stretched very much.

Mr. Burns: Following the changes that will take place on 1 April, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that any proposals to reorganise the magistrates courts are given careful consideration, so that certain schemes do not proceed—in particular, crackpot schemes such as the proposal to move the magistrates courts out of Chelmsford. the county town of Essex, and up the road? That would cause my constituents great inconvenience and difficulties.

The Solicitor-General: I know that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor regards the local connection for magistrates as a very important element of their extremely important jurisdiction.

Serious Fraud Office

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General if he has any plans to widen the remit of the Serious Fraud Office.

The Attorney-General: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to my Questions; I thought that I must have hurt his feelings last time. The statutory remit of the Serious Fraud Office is to investigate and prosecute suspected offences involving serious complex fraud. I do not consider any revision necessary.

Mr. Skinner: The reason why we have not been in combat is that the Table Office has not been placing my questions high enough on the Order Paper.
Will the Attorney-General have a look at the questions that have arisen over what has been revealed during the past two weeks about the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who was chairman of the Maxwell Communication Corporation for two months

and picked up £300,000 in shares, a £100,000 handshake and a Mercedes for a quid? Given the call for others to tighten their belts, should not the matter be investigated? Will the Attorney-General look into it?

The Attorney-General: I shall assume in the hon. Gentleman's favour, but without much confidence, that he gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester notice of that question.
If any conduct by anyone in the country—no matter who that person is—is thought to give rise to the possibility of a criminal offence, it is the duty of whoever makes such an assertion to report that conduct to the police. It is not a matter for the Serious Fraud Office. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he has got something, he should report it to the police. If he has not got anything, I hope that he will not raise the matter again in the House of Commons, where privilege operates.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Elephant Conservation Schemes

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what elephant conservation schemes are currently being funded by his Department.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): Since 1990, the Overseas Development Administration has committed almost £20 million to wildlife conservation projects in Africa, many of which contribute directly or indirectly to elephant conservation. A list of projects is available in the Library of the House.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he take this opportunity to restate the Government's continuing support for a continuing ban on the international sale of elephant ivory? Is he aware that Botswana, which receives considerable amounts from his Department in respect of wildlife conservation, is planning to set up an elephant processing factory near the Chobe national park? Is he aware that Botswana's deputy director of wildlife, Mr. Niger Hunter, advocates the sale of elephant ivory? Mr. Hunter occupies a post which is funded by the Department. Should not that be stopped now?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Government remain fully committed to maintaining the current ban as long as it is necessary to secure the revival and recovery of the African elephant populations. The Convention on Trade in Endangered Species panel experts will be reporting on proposals that countries such as Botswana have submitted. We shall have to consider the panel's reports, but I cannot anticipate our position on reports that are not yet available.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend give examples of ways in which British financial aid helps to save elephants and other endangered species, bearing in mind the very great importance of the question raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes. Of course the Government have a comprehensive wildlife conservation support


programme in Africa. We support 27 wildlife projects in eight countries. Since 1990, that has amounted to £20 million worth of assistance to wildlife conservation.

Disaster Relief Unit

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present complement of the disaster relief unit in his Department.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The current complement of the emergency aid department is 12½.

Mr. Barnes: During the initial crisis when the Kurds fled into the mountains, followed by the crisis in the western Sahara and Bangladesh, the numbers in the disaster relief unit were slowly increased, following questions that were asked by my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, from four to six, then to nine and then to 12. The figure now seems to be 12½ persons, according to the Minister's answer. That unit was sorely pressed. It worked beyond the call of duty with inadequate resources and lack of personnel. Has anything been learnt from those disasters so that the unit can be given the resources, personnel and status that it requires?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That organisation is now called the emergency aid department and comprises the disaster and refugee unit. The figures are broadly as the hon. Gentleman suggested. Since last year they have been maintained at the level of 12, or 12½. It is important, as every non-governmental organisation would testify, that administration of aid is kept to the minimum. What is important is not a heavyweight bureaucracy at home but the amount of money that is put into the aid itself.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the amount of money available for disaster relief has been doubled and that, unlike some other countries, we are able to get relief on to the ground very quickly indeed, because the bureaucratic delays have just been swept away?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes. For example, the Overseas Development Administration's work in northern Iraq was widely praised by the international community. We have committed £139 million of humanitarian aid this financial year, against the original provision of £75 million.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On the question of disaster relief for the Kurds, what action are the Government taking to break the economic embargo that has been imposed by Saddam Hussein on the Kurdish communities of northern Iraq? To what extent are the British Government involved in the initiatives being taken by the American Government, which were reported extensively in the American and the British media last weekend?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Security Council resolution 688 demanded that Iraq should end its repression against the civilian population of Iraq. We have warned the Iraqi Government that violation of the resolution would have serious consequences. It is not appropriate, however, for me to comment on intelligence matters, but we should certainly shed no tears if Saddam fell.

Sri Lanka (Ministerial Visit)

Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Sri Lanka to discuss overseas aid; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: None, Sir.

Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that that is a very regrettable answer? Is he aware of the urgent need for aid to Sri Lanka, but aid that is based on the upholding of human rights in that country? If no visit is proposed, will the Minister make clear to the Sri Lankan Government the deep concern of many hon. Members about the rights of the Tamil community, and most especially that we should be given assurances that food and medical supplies reach the Tamil areas in Sri Lanka, particularly in the Jaffna area?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes; on many, many occasions we have made known our concerns about the Tamil people. Of course we have not cut off, or completely frozen, all aid. However, we withdrew the conditional offer of £3 million worth of aid last July in order to emphasise our concern about human rights. Indeed, we imposed various measures on the Sri Lankan Government as a result of the high commissioner's expulsion last year.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in many cases people in other countries would not have so much need of aid if they were to stop fighting each other? The great problem about overseas aid is that those countries that receive it often use it to buy arms with which their peoples kill each other.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course I accept my hon. Friend's point that if there were no conflict there would be less need for aid. However, it would be going too far to suggest that the poorest countries in the world will not always need aid.

Voluntary Agencies

Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with voluntary agencies on the role of voluntary agencies in aid matters in the last four weeks.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In the last four weeks my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has met with voluntary agencies on five occasions. I have had two such meetings.

Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister satisfied that, with regard to these agencies, we are doing enough? Is not it a fact that there is a critical feeling that we in the United Kingdom could do far more to help some of those voluntary agencies to provide assistance in the third world?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that, with seven meetings between Ministers and the voluntary agencies in the last month, we have shown our great commitment to the work that the agencies do. Of course we recognise the terrific help that they provide within our aid programme. In particular, they are able to help the poorest in many countries in a way that is not always possible with Government-to-Government aid.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I ask my hon. Friend whether, in addition to the party-political election


arguments about overseas aid, we shall, if we win the election, have discussions with the voluntary organisations? Would not it be possible to set a timetable to achieve at least a halving of the gap between our present official aid levels and the United Nations target, to whose attainment, at some unspecified time in the future, we are committed?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The 1991–92 aid budget is 10 per cent. more in cash terms, and 3 per cent. more in real terms, than that for the last year. We shall, of course, continue our discussion with the voluntary agencies and the non-governmental organisations. Indeed, a very important fact is that the theme for the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community will be the promotion of the voluntary agencies. At the moment a great deal of work and discussion is being undertaken on that initiative.

Kenya

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about future levels of aid to Kenya.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Our gross bilateral aid programme in 1990—the last year for which figures are available—was £44 million. The future programme will depend on further political and economic reform.

Mr. Hain: Why have not the British Government been much tougher with regard to the provision of aid—as the Americans and some of our European partners have been —to ensure that the democratic changes in Kenya towards the first free, multi-party elections genuinely take root, to ensure that there is a fair system of voter registration and an independent electoral commission and to ensure that there are international observers from the United Nations or the Commonwealth? Surely the British Government must insist upon these points as a condition of the provision of future aid?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are not out of line with other donors. All donors have agreed that new pledges of balance of payments support should await further economic and political reform. But, as is only right, we are continuing project and technical assistance activities to help the poor. I can accept a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman says about how the election should be conducted. Of course there must be free and fair elections. I only wish that the hon. Gentleman had taken the opportunity to make those points to the Kenyan Foreign Minister. An appointment was arranged for him when he was in Kenya last December.

Motorway Service Areas

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government's future policy on the provision of motorway services.
Development of the motorway network over the past 30 or so years has brought significant benefits to motorists. Those benefits have been seen most recently in the opening of the final sections of the M25, M40 and M20, and will continue in future with the completion of other motorway projects, such as the upgrading to motorway standard of the A1 between the M25 and Tyneside and the A74 from Glasgow to Carlisle.
Motorway service areas in England have been centrally planned and controlled since the inception of the motorway network. That approach has produced a standardised pattern of relatively large service areas at intervals of about 30 miles operated by very few catering companies. Provision of MSAs—motorway service areas —has failed to keep pace with the development of new motorways. Most notably, there are at present no services on the 200-mile motorway route between Folkestone and Birmingham.
We announced in the citizens charter that a complete reform in the current arrangements was necessary. I am today publishing a consultation document which proposes a new way forward. The aim is for more MSAs where they are necessary and a better choice. A copy of the consultation document has been placed in the Library. It has been widely circulated among existing and prospective operators, local planning authorities, and motorists' and consumer organisations. It invites comments by 20 March on the application of the proposed policy in Scotland and Wales, as in England.
The main feature of our proposals is that the Department of Transport should no longer decide the location of MSAs and should no longer own MSA sites. In future, sites would be identified and acquired by private initiative in the same way as are other desirable developments.
In seeking generally to reduce bureaucratic involvement in the provision of motorway service areas, I am consulting on the degree of deregulation to be adopted. There are two broad options. Under the first, my Department would continue to require that certain minimum standards should continue to be met in order to ensure certain facilities that the market might not otherwise provide. Examples might be minimum hours of opening—whether 24 hours or less; or a requirement that a certain number of parking places for lorries should be available; or a requirement that lavatories, telephones and parking should be freely accessible to the public. That list is not exhaustive. Such requirements could be enforced by way of a combination of planning conditions and the Department's control of access to and signing from the motorway. That is very similar to the system that has been followed successfully in Wales where there are, at present, five MSAs—including one under construction—on the 75 or so miles of the M4 in Wales.
Under the second option my Department would go further and withdraw from all controls over what was provided at MSAs. Its only concerns would be to ensure that the access arrangements proposed were safe and that

arrangements had been made for the developer to meet the cost of any highway improvements required. We would also expect, under this option, to allow the operators of suitable off-line sites, as well as those on the motorway, to seek signing. The number and frequency of MSAs, and the level and range of services that each provided, would be decided by the market, as with other developments. That would lead to the greatest possible diversity and competition and so would offer the motorist the widest choice.
Under either option, developers would require planning permission in the normal way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will issue planning policy guidance to local authorities on the factors bearing on consideration of proposed motorway services developments. Also, to protect the efficiency of motorways as high-speed through-routes for long distance traffic, a general prohibition on new MSA accesses at less than 10-mile intervals is proposed. That is less than the current assumption of 30 miles and may lead to proposals for smaller MSAs which would be more environmentally acceptable. The new arrangements that we propose will have implications for existing MSAs. They will also affect schemes which my Department has in the pipeline.
For the 44 existing MSAs in England, I propose, unless I am persuaded otherwise after consultation, that the Department should dispose of its leases to existing operators, enabling them to compete on equal terms with new facilities brought forward under the new deregulated regime.
Some new sites in the pipeline are well advanced and will be taken forward under broadly the existing arrangements. This will he the quickest way of providing these much-needed services. On other stretches of motorway, although the Department has done preliminary work in planning for services, we will now expect the private sector to take the opportunity to fill the gaps.
The proposals that I am launching today flow from commitments made in the citizens charter. We said then that our aim was to improve the rate of provision and number of MSAs, and so enhance consumer choice. I am convinced that this can best be achieved by lifting Government regulation and encouraging private enterprise into this important market.

Mr. John Prescott: This is yet another statement in the continuing public relations rhetoric concerning the citizens charter and is intended to produce motorway service stations which, on some stretches of motorway such as the M40, are clearly needed because none presently exists.
The statement is also born out of the Prime Minister's experience at the Happy Eater some months ago when he decided to demand more service stations such as the Happy Eater and instructed the Secretary of State for Transport to provide plans for them. As I understand it, the Secretary of State provided the plan, but it was vetoed by his colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment on planning grounds. Once again, he overruled the Department of Transport on transport matters. The statement represents a further victory over transport for the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The matter is to be dealt with in a review, and as the review will be completed by 20 March, I as the Secretary


of State will not accept—[Interruption.]—I will not accept the proposals which are a licence to the developers to exploit the green belt.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the provision of motorway stations through a deregulated system will mean handing over control to the developers—with planning decisions and the passing of hundreds of thousands of pounds to influence those planning decisions —and will produce a number of empty sites where service stations are found to be commercially viable, as we witness with petrol stations? There will be massive development sites in our most attractive green belt areas, and that concerns many people.
Will the Secretary of State assure the House, under whatever system he considers, that the increasing practice, especially of the Happy Eaters, to deny large lorries access to their sites and to the refreshment facilities necessary for tired drivers will not continue and that minimum standards will include good standards for our heavy vehicles?
In this review, will the Secretary of State consider the other citizens charter promise to reduce the number of cones on our motorways in light of the report by the Select Committee on Transport that the number of cones on our motorways can be expected to double in the next two years due to the lack of maintenance of our road programme?
The statement represents a complete handing-over of development rights to the developers for the exploitation of the beautiful areas around our motorways. I assure the House that, as next Secretary of State, I will not allow that to take place.

Mr. Rifkind: I was delighted to see that the hon. Gentleman was so unconvinced by his picture of himself as the next Secretary of State that he could not present the proposal with a straight face. We all share his merriment in contemplating that matter.
I was greatly interested by the hon. Gentleman's denunciation of our proposals for deregulation which, he said, represent a hand-over of the public interest to the developers. Is he suggesting, therefore, that the system that has existed in Wales for a number of years has been anything other than a success? Is he suggesting that the future Labour Government in which he proposes to have such an important and honourable position will reverse the situation in Wales? Does he not realise that the Welsh experience is worth following?
When the hon. Gentleman said that the Department of the Environment was unhappy with our proposals, he introduced the realm of fantasy into the issue because his comment bears no relation to the events. No such veto took place at any time. He is living in a world of his own.
The hon. Gentleman asked about cones on motorways. As part of the citizens charter proposals, the lane rental scheme, which is leading to significant reductions in the use of cones, is being extended to 60 per cent. of all motorway contracts. In one respect, the hon. Gentleman's policy would lead to the use of fewer cones because he does not propose to build any more motorways; no doubt fewer cones would be part of the consequence of his policy.
The hon. Gentleman appears to be complacent about the existing arrangements, which have led to insufficient motorway service areas, and he has not identified one

respect in which a Labour Government would find alternative means of ensuring that motorists received the services to which they were entitled.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will see from the Order Paper that we have a busy day ahead of us. I shall allow questions on the statement to continue for 30 minutes, then we must move on. If questions are brief, I shall be able to call all those hon. Members who have been rising.

Sir Timothy Raison: Will my right hon. and learned Friend convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the great undesirability of building motorway service areas in places such as Stokenchurch, on the M40, given that long discussions have already proved conclusively that undesirability?

Mr. Rifkind: It is accepted that, under any scheme, it is necessary for applicants to seek planning permission and, obviously, the Secretary of State for the Environment takes the ultimate decision on the planning aspects of any proposal, which is only right and proper.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: We welcome the statement because we feel that smaller units have been needed for a long time and now we are to get them. The Secretary of State mentioned 20 March. That allows a very short time—

Mr. Prescott: He will not be in office after that.

Mr. Fearn: Perhaps so. That seems to be a very short time to allow for negotiations between consumer organisations and others, and those who own the motorway stations.
What will happen about signposting? People will be turning off motorways to smaller units and may well find that they provide only eating places and lavatories but no petrol. That is most important. Women driving on their own will have certain reservations about turning off to small units—[Interruption.] I am talking about safety measures here—if they are not sure of getting petrol there.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for our proposals. Smaller motorway service areas will be less environmentally controversial and will be more likely to be acceptable to the public as a whole as well as to motorists. The smaller service areas will almost invariably provide petrol for the driver: after all, that will be their main raison d'etre and source of income. If a motorway service area did not provide the full range of services, it would be appropriate for that to be indicated on the signs so that motorists would be aware of the services that they could expect to find.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that two welcome conclusions might be drawn from his statement? If the conditions that he now suggests had applied, we should not have had to wait 16 years, with still not a sod turned towards the first motorway service area on the M11, and market-driven operators would be more likely to produce smaller, more environmentally friendly schemes than that imposed by his Department upon my constituents at Birchanger.

Mr. Rifkind: Part of the thinking behind the proposals is that, the fewer motorway service areas there are, the larger the projects are likely to be, and in the past that has inevitably led to some very controversial proposals which have been strongly resisted in various localities. I believe that it is now a more commonly held view that the proposals that we are advancing are likely to be more environmentally acceptable.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Secretary of State accept that some of us were surprised at the way in which he extolled the virtues of service areas along the M4? Does he remember that, until 1991, there was not a single service station between the Aust services near the Severn bridge—which is in England—and the Sarn services near Bridgend, well over 40 miles away, and that, for the first five years of its life, when one reached the Sarn services, one found that the only places for eating and drinking were Nissen huts scattered on a muddy patch? I hope that the wonderful service areas that he has just announced will not be like that for the first five years of their life.

Mr. Rifkind: The Welsh experience appears to be that, within the 75 miles of motorway, four motorway service areas are already available and a fifth is being made available at the moment. That is an important achievement and it shows that the approach being pursued in that part of the country appears to have been more able than that applied elsewhere at providing the services that motorists require.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take a little time to study the service area at Tebay on the M6 in my constituency? After the big groups expressed no interest in the 1960s, a local group developed motorway services there. As a result, that service area now employs more than 150 people, almost exactly the same number that Tebay used to employ on the railways during the golden days of the railways. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment sends his circular to planning authorities, will my right hon. and learned Friend ask him to draw to their attention the dramatic effect on local employment that service areas can have in upland areas of low population where jobs are not very plentiful?

Mr. Rifkind: I applaud what has been achieved in the Tebay service area; and my right hon. Friend is right to say that lessons from that experience may be learned in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Department of Transport is to blame for the lack of services on the M11? Will service stations be built on green belt land? If they are, he will find that a series of beefburger bills on the motorway will not be very appetising for motorists.

Mr. Rifkind: The normal planning rules will apply for any proposal affecting the green belt, and that is very important. The main reasons for delays have been, in part, the public inquiries required for planning applications, the disputes in respect of compulsory purchase powers sought by the Department and a number of fruitless legal challenges to the way in which the Department carried out its responsibilities. At least two of those three causes of delay would no longer apply under the proposals that I have outlined today.

Mr. John Carlisle: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the news about deregulation will be warmly greeted in Toddington service station on the M1, one of the oldest service stations in the country and one of the busiest, on the basis that the new opportunity will increase jobs in the area? Will he say something about access to motorway service stations and whether he might relax the rule that they can be approached only from the motorway itself, because there could be opportunities for further development behind stations for sporting and leisure facilities for people who are not necessarily travelling on the motorway?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for the proposals. The prime function and raison d'etre of motorway service areas has been the provision of services to the travelling public. We would be reluctant to encourage large amounts of traffic to seek access to a motorway service area as that might result in additional congestion. However, each proposal must be considered on its own merit to discover whether there are particular circumstances which might justify departing from that general approach.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is a nightmare scenario to imagine the country up to its ears in citizens charters with wall-to-wall Happy Eaters. Did I gather from what the Secretary of State said that local authorities will be required to give the initial planning consent, not his Department? Will he tell us how many new outlets he envisages being in situ in the next five years —assuming, of course, that the new Labour Secretary of State does not end the scheme?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman added a rather important qualification at the end of his question. The normal planning rules continue to apply. Therefore, any application for a motorway service area must go to the planning authorities and follow the normal planning procedures. That side does not change. The change is the ending of disputes with regard to the compulsory purchase powers sought by the Department and the various unsuccessful legal challenges which have delayed progress enormously in some projects.
It would be contrary to the philosophy behind my statement for me to indicate the number of motorway service areas. That will be determined in the light of the needs of motorists as identified by the potential developers of those motorway service areas.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: In freeing up refreshment areas along motorways, will my right hon. and learned Friend give added impetus to the private building of motorways and indeed even the installation of toll gates on motorways that already exist, such as the M40, which is ideally suited to that?

Mr. Rifkind: We have no proposals to introduce tolls on existing motorways. We have been prepared to consider the private financing of certain new road projects, of which the Birmingham northern relief road is the most important to come forward so far.

Mr. Harry Ewing: With the deregulation of motorway service areas, and with the opening up to private enterprise and competition, may I have an absolute assurance from the Secretary of State that there are no plans to allow service areas to sell alcohol in any form?

Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We have no intention of relaxing the ban on alcohol at all motorway service areas, either now or in the future.

Mr. Den Dover: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is a tremendous problem at the Charnock Richard service station in my constituency regarding access to and exit from it by traffic that is not on the motorway? Does he accept that there is a tremendous need for direct access? Service area operators want direct access in terms of sales of goods and petrol. Contrary to what my right hon. and learned Friend said to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), such access would ease congestion, particularly on minor roads. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look most carefully at that important point?

Mr. Rifkind: I shall certainly do so. I tried to acknowledge to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) that alternative access to a motorway service area might be appropriate in some circumstances. Clearly, their primary purpose is to serve users of the motorway, but if local circumstances justify additional access without causing congestion or road safety problems, it would obviously be perverse to prevent that if no difficulties were caused by a provision of that kind.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Secretary of State list the four sites of what he has described as the four operating centres in Wales? As his statement, like most of the citizens charter, is hype and transparent general election propaganda, will today's statement be financed by Conservative central office?

Mr. Rifkind: I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's final comment. Either he believes that it is desirable to have easier and quicker provision of motorway service areas for the needs of the travelling motorist or he does not. I should have thought that his own constituents would see it as a desirable announcement because it is likely to provide the facilities that the motorist so anxiously needs. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Labour party does not believe that, for example, for the 200 miles between Folkestone and Birmingham there should continue to be no motorway service areas? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to suggest to his constituents?

Mr. Mark Wolfson: While I welcome freeing up the development of motorway service stations, does my right hon and learned Friend agree that it is absolutely essential at this early stage in the debate to make the point that, so far, the development of petrol stations along normal roads in this country has been visually very obtrusive and unattractive? Does he also agree that, when new stations are being developed on motorways, it is vital that the planning authorities place heavy emphasis on making them environmentally superior to what was built before?

Mr. Rifkind: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. There are one or two motorway services which make a contribution to improving the landscape of the locality, but that is the exception and not the rule. It should be possible, with a combination of sensitive design and good architectural thought, to bring forward

developments that not only meet the needs of the motorist but do so in a way that is sympathetic to the environment in which such facilities are to be found.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister for Roads and Traffic, who is sitting next to the Secretary of State, will recollect that on 5 February he sent me a courteous and considered response to a six-page, tightly argued article by Professor James Horne, professor of psychophysiology at Loughborough, who has studied microsleep and the phenomenon of driving without awareness. Does the Secretary of State accept that those are very important matters for driving on motorways, particularly on motorways such as the M9, which he and I know well? What conclusions for both those studies and indeed the studies of driver behaviour that his Department set in train in 1986 are to be used in relation to making motorway service areas better from the point of view of traffic accidents, very often late at night?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Precisely those considerations lead to the need for easy availability of motorway service areas. Sometimes drivers are driving for many hours and for long distances on the motorways. It is important that they should not be required to leave the motorway to have a short rest or get refreshment. Unfortunately, that has been a necessity in some parts of the country. The proposals have been brought forward to deal with that sort of problem.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and by people in my constituency who have fought strongly against the Department of Transport's proposal to build a 50-acre service station at Arley, in Cheshire, which is in the middle of the green belt? Could he give an assurance that any scheme put forward by the private sector would tend to be in a more environmentally friendly site and would not be of such a monstrous size?

Mr. Rifkind: Clearly, any proposal which might be put forward by the private sector would have to be subject to all the rigours of the planning system and would be tested against proper criteria. It is likely that in future proposals will be for developments of a more modest size. As a result of that change, at least some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members are less likely to occur.

Mr. Roger King: As my right hon. and learned Friend may know, I am a regular user of the M40 and I look forward immensely to some form of relief coming to the motorist during the next few months. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether any developer who might wish to invest in a motorway rest area be obliged to develop on both sides of the motorway? I can foresee the opportunity to develop a small, modest site on just one side which would be attractive to the motor car user without having to indulge in the huge expenditure necessary to develop an exact replica on the other side.

Mr. Rifkind: There are already some examples of motorway service areas on one side of the road only. Inherent in the proposals for greater flexibility is the assumption that there may be proposals of the kind that my hon. Friend referred to, which may make sense and


may therefore be more easily acceptable to the local community than a proposal with more serious environmental implications because of its sheer scale. Flexibility is inherent in our approach and therefore I am happy to respond positively to my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. Bob. Dunn: If the proposals put forward by the Secretary of State today lead to the introduction of discreetly fashioned motorway service areas along the southbound carriageway of the M25, I shall welcome them. Will he confirm that the introduction of more competition into the provision of motorway service areas will lead to better quality service and lower prices for the consumer? My constituents, like his, probably object to being ripped off by the very high prices charged by some providers.

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, there has been concern among many motorists who feel that inadequate choice is available to them. To provide that choice also requires the provision of the relevant information for the motorist on the motorway determining which service area to use, who should be aware of the differing facilities which might be available and of the cost likely to be inherent in them. I believe that our approach will be more likely to meet the objectives that my hon. Friend has rightly referred to.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, as I have to drive home 250 miles every Thursday night to my constituency, I would appreciate greatly if more facilities were available? Will he ensure that every motorway service station, however small, has facilities for disabled people? That is an absolute must, wherever they may be. Does he not think that it is a remarkable reflection on the Labour party's cavalier attitude to keeping promises that the shadow Secretary of State for Transport finds it reprehensible that we should be keeping ours?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the needs of the disabled. It would be highly desirable that all motorway service areas should have proper facilities to meet the requirements of persons in that category.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: If my right hon. and learned Friend thinks it desirable, may I press him to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory

Committee which hopes to persuade him that it is essential for every motorway service area to have facilities for disabled people?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who spoke for the Opposition, that cars are profitable for motorway service area operators but that lorries are unprofitable? A power of direction will be necessary because lorry drivers are required to stop and if they do not find provision on the motorway they will go off them, which in itself is undesirable.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, during consultation, people may wish to consider the contrast in the flows of traffic on the M4 in Wales and those, for example, on the M1 and the M25? Does he accept that the citizens charter means that citizens may lose £10 million for each service area on motorways where the operators are in competition and bidding up? It is likely that that competition will upset people in every thicket, field and green-belt area, where it is difficult to get permission to build a road in the first place. That is likely to cause more rather than less trouble for Members of Parliament.

Mr. Rifkind: I do not agree with my hon. Friend's final observation. However, his earlier remarks are highly relevant because the document offers two possible options for different degrees of future involvement by the Department of Transport. I am anxious to hear comments on whether 24-hour access, free lavatories and so on should be available at every motorway service area or whether their provision should be subject to the proposals of the developer and influenced by normal planning criteria only. Important consequences follow, depending on the option chosen. I want to hear comments about that from the public and from interested parties before reaching a conclusion.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),

AGRICULTURE

That the draft Farm Woodland Premium Scheme 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Offshore Safety Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The principal purpose of the Bill is to enable many of the recommendations of Lord Cullen's report into the Piper Alpha disaster to be implemented. The events of the evening of 6 July 1988 led to an explosion and fire resulting in the deaths of 167 men. The disaster was the most serious in the history of offshore development. It was a dreadful reminder that safety can never be taken for granted. We must never forget the tragedy and distress that it brought to the families of those who died or were injured, to all the survivors and to those who took part in the rescue operation. Every possible step must be taken to prevent such a tragedy in the future.
A week later, Lord Cullen was appointed to lead a public inquiry to establish the circumstances and cause of the disaster. The inquiry also examined what could be done to prevent similar disasters. It was extensive and thorough, taking more than two years to complete.
The report was published in November 1990. It was an outstanding piece of work. I add my personal tribute to the many already paid to Lord Cullen by those involved in the offshore industry and many others. The fact that the Government immediately accepted all 106 recommendations in his report is a tribute to its breadth and quality and reflects the seriousness with which we take these matters. The offshore industry also accepted the report in its entirety.
Since the report into the Piper Alpha disaster was published, a great deal has already been done to implement the report's recommendations. I shall refer to three matters by way of illustration of progress so far.
First, on 1 April last year, responsibility for offshore safety was transferred to me from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. This responsibility is administered on my behalf by the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. The transfer was agreed on the basis of extra staff and resources for the enforcement of offshore safety legislation. In addition to this, the Government have increased the resources available to the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive to finance their other tasks arising from Lord Cullen's recommendations. The total resources allocated for offshore safety in 1991–92 are £20 million, an increase of some £8 million from the previous year. This budget will rise progressively to £35 million by 1994–95. As stated in the explanatory and financial memorandum, none of the Bill's provisions involves any additional resources in itself, because the transfer of responsibility for offshore safety has already taken place by administrative means.
That increase in resources will allow for a fourfold increase in the number of Health and Safety Executive people working on offshore safety. Of course, new recruits will require full training in specialist inspection techniques and clearly there is a limit to the number of persons that

can be effectively trained and supervised at any one time. The Health and Safety Executive aims to recruit new staff at the fastest rate possible within these constraints. The recruitment targets are ambitious, and with a view to achieving them a review of grading has already been completed. A review of pay based on the grading review will soon report to the Health and Safety Executive.
Secondly, a revised code of practice on standby vessels was published jointly by the Health and Safety Executive and the Department of Transport last July. It incorporates improvements in the design and provision of equipment on these vessels as recommended by Lord Cullen.
Thirdly, many of the 106 recommendations require action from the offshore industry itself—for example, the preparation of an evacuation, escape and rescue analysis for each installation. The Health and Safety Executive is in regular contact with the industry to monitor progress and to ensure that these analyses will be completed without delay.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Bill says:
Clause 1 extends the general purposes … of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 … to cover the safety, health and welfare of persons on offshore installations".
Will the Secretary of State confirm that that includes divers and diving operations, as well as the crews of standby vessels?

Mr. Howard: My understanding is that both the categories identified by the hon. Gentleman are included in the provisions of clause 1.
It is neither desirable nor practicable to use the Bill to implement all the remaining recommendations of Lord Cullen, who himself made it clear that many of his recommendations should be introduced by regulations rather than primary legislation. Additionally, the recommendations for reform of existing offshore legislation require full study and wide consultation and Parliament has placed the general responsibility for developing reforms of health and safety law with the Health and Safety Commission. So, for example, new provisions on fire and explosion protection and evacuation, escape and rescue offshore will be made by regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act as Lord Cullen intended.
Many of Lord Cullen's other recommendations do not require any form of legislation. I have already referred to the standby vessel code; other new initiatives taken forward since publication of the Cullen report include the issue by the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association of revised guidance on offshore emergency training, and the publication of guidance on work permit systems by the oil industry advisory committee of the Health and Safety Commission.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Can I take the Secretary of State back to the staffing of the new offshore inspectorate under the HSE? He will remember that the Select Committee on Energy looked at this matter last year and advised that secondment from oil companies should be only a temporary solution because of the possible conflicts of interest, and that there should be an extensive training programme to train potential recruits with wide offshore experience to widen the pool of people available to become inspectors. In their reply, the Government were


brief, but said that they were sympathetic to a new training scheme. Has anything been done since the Secretary of State's reply to the Committee?

Mr. Howard: My understanding is that that training programme is in hand and it is fully recognised that there is a need to train people who will be in place as soon as possible to discharge these onerous responsibilities.
In other cases, more information is needed before we can decide how best to implement Lord Cullen's recommendations. He recognised that further research work was necessary, for example, to determine how best to minimise the pipeline connections to platforms.
Lord Cullen also endorsed the commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy in September 1989 to review the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989. This review is under way. The Health and Safety Commission considers that the review should be informed by an in-depth factual study of the practical working of the regulations. The HSE has now appointed an independent research organisation, Aberdeen university's offshore study group, to carry out this study. Work will start shortly and the study is expected to last nine months. The HSE will then consult a wider range of interested parties before making recommendations to the commission.
Lord Cullen also recommended that the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989 should be modified so that training of safety representatives should be determined and paid for by the operator. I have already mentioned that a review of the regulations is under way. As soon as the review is complete, the Government will implement this recommendation together with any other necessary changes. In the meantime, the issue is not being allowed to stagnate. I welcome the joint initiative by the main industry associations in issuing a charter of health and safety rights. This makes it clear that, among other matters, safety representatives must have industry-approved training, and paid time off for training.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell me that I am wrong or that I am being unduly harsh, but discussions have been going round and round, as it were, ever since the Burgoyne report. Why has the procedure taken so long? Am I missing something or am I asking a reasonable question?

Mr. Howard: That is a reasonable question to ask and there is a simple answer. The answer is that since we have had Lord Cullen's report everything has been done and is being done to implement the recommendations as soon as practicable. The discussions and the review to which I have referred are focused on the most effective way of implementing the recommendations set out in the report. Lord Cullen recognised that it would take a considerable time before these matters were put in place. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that responsibility for taking forward the recommendations is rightly in the hands of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware of the tripartite composition of the commission.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Secretary of State explain why proper legislative

protection against victimisation is almost the only recommendation of Lord Cullen that the Government have still not implemented?

Mr. Howard: As it happens, I am just about to deal with victimisation. The hon. Gentleman will see that his question is answered.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has said, another of Lord Cullen's recommendations was that safety representatives should be protected against victimisation. In order to fulfil this recommendation, the Government intend to amend employment protection legislation to ensure that representatives who have been dismissed or otherwise victimised because of their safety role can gain redress through an industrial tribunal. But such legislation falls outside the scope of the Bill, which deals with safety matters rather than employment issues. We shall take the matter forward as soon as a suitable legislative vehicle becomes available.
Victimisation of workers who raise safety concerns is completely unacceptable. It undermines the objective of increased safety awareness. Where there is clear evidence of intimidation, the HSE will investigate it because it could indicate weaknesses in the safety management system. The name and address of an offshore inspector is displayed on every offshore installation and if workers contact the HSE anonymity is guaranteed if requested. If health and safety standards are being threatened, the HSE would take the necessary enforcement action where there is sufficient evidence of intimidation.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think that there will be a general welcome from hon. Members on both sides of the House for my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement that there will be further legislation to cover employment matters. Will the information that is made available about health and safety and the inspector be made available also on onshore, non-oil areas of employment? To take up his remarks about operators being required to finance the training of safety representatives, do the Government intend to continue their funding of the trade union movement so that trade unions can undertake some of the training themselves and give support to the non-oil related representatives at the workplace as well?

Mr. Howard: On my hon. Friend's first point, I have recently received a request from the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress for the Government to continue their grant towards its training activities. I am considering that request and I shall make my response known in due course. On his second point, I am not entirely convinced that it is necessary to have the same information available at all onshore facilities, but I shall consider the matter.

Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State says, as he has before, that the victimisation investigated and established is unacceptable to the Government. He said that there would be an amendment to employment legislation to allow the matter to go to industrial tribunals. What penalties would be available against either the operators or the oil companies that were found guilty of victimisation of workers, whether or not they were safety representatives? If the Government find victimisation so


unacceptable, what penalties will be available under the changes that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is proposing?

Mr. Howard: If, for example, a worker were dismissed because he had made a complaint to the HSE, he could bring proceedings for unfair dismissal on the basis of constructive dismissal. He could obtain considerable compensation from an industrial tribunal.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State accept that, in a sense, legislation to deal with that issue is at least as urgent as the need for the Bill? He will be aware of the case of Mr. Colin Jewell, which has been well publicised. He took his complaint about safety faults to the HSE. It was investigated and upheld, but he is now unable to find employment in the North sea. He has no compensation and no security. Because of that, many people are not prepared to make complaints about safety problems and safety design faults, even though they see them every day.

Mr. Howard: I agree that it is important that Lord Cullen's recommendation is put into effect as soon as possible—and it will be as soon as a suitable legislative vehicle is available. The Bill does not provide that vehicle. We shall ensure that the law is changed to provide the protection to which hon. Members have referred, as soon as it is possible to do so.

Mr. Tony Blair: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Will he confirm that there are no procedural reasons why the issue of victimisation should not be included in the Bill? If someone is being victimised, and he is a safety representative, surely it is as important for safety reasons as for employment reasons to ensure that the matter is covered in the Bill.

Mr. Howard: The safety aspects have been considered and, as I have said, they are covered by the extent to which anonymous complaints can be made to the HSE. Therefore, the direct safety aspects are covered already. We have been advised that the matter is outside the scope of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will readily appreciate that a Bill that covers employment issues would be subject to amendment on a whole range of issues. That could delay the passage of the Bill, to which we attach considerable importance. I must make it clear that we intend to legislate to cover Lord Cullen's victimisation recommendation as soon as it is possible to do so.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply simply does not wash. He knows that both the long title and the short title of the Bill are entirely in the Government's hands and that there is no statutory reason why the Bill should not cover victimisation. I accept his point that if employment provisions were attached to the Bill that could widen its scope, but he knows that the Bill has the good will of the House and that we would not want to delay it. It was irresponsible of him to suggest that the Opposition would create procedural difficulties to delay the Bill; it was wrong to give that impression. With the agreement of the Opposition, the issue of victimisation could be dealt with here and now.

Mr. Howard: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman fully understood the point that I was making. I certainly was not making any accusations about the Opposition's attitude. Employment issues arouse concern in all parts of the House, and many individual right hon. and hon. Members—regardless of the attitude taken by members of the Opposition Front Bench—might want to use employment legislation as a vehicle for changing employment law in one of a number of respects. That is clearly a possibility, in respect of which it would not be possible for members of the Opposition Front Bench to give any assurance, and it could lead to delay. We want the legislation to be on the statute book as soon as possible —and we do not want to risk delay on that account.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I ask my right hon. and learned Friend, who makes a fair point, to consider that when the employment legislation comes forward it should be made retrospective to this month. We would hate any suggestion of people in the offshore industry, or in any other, being inhibited in speaking plainly on safety matters. I will not ask my right hon. and learned Friend for an instant response, but I ask the Government to consider that aspect.
Also, the legislation that would be required under an ordinary employment Bill could be relatively simple. It might be possible for a Back Bencher in any part of the House to present a Bill which, if it raised no objection and was simple, could go through the House and another place without difficulty. I do not expect my right hon. and learned Friend to answer immediately, but perhaps he will consider those suggestions and answer at the end of the debate, or in a day or two.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend was kind enough not to ask for an immediate response to his points. He sought an assurance about the retrospective effect of any such legislation. I cannot hold out any great hope of any breach in any constitutional principle and precedent to that extent. I repeat my earlier point: the safety aspects are currently covered by the arrangements for anonymous complaints to be made.
My hon. Friend suggested also that it might be possible for a Back Bencher to bring forward appropriate legislation. As I understand it, it is the intention of a Back-Bench member of another place to introduce legislation that purports to cover the point. It would not do so satisfactorily, and it is technically defective. However, I am prepared to listen to the debate in another place in relation to that legislation, and to take into account the points made this afternoon, before determining the Government's final attitude to the Bill that is to be brought forward in another place.

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps I may disabuse the Secretary of State on the question of anonymous complaints. A number of right hon. and hon. Members represent consitutents who work in the North sea, and know very well the reality of anonymous complaints. If one rings the HSE, one is asked, "Where, when, and who?" If one cannot answer, one is bombed out and is told that as there is no proof, the complaint cannot be backed up. On one occasion, I revealed, with the consent of the person involved, the full nature of the complaint. The next time round, such an individual has it taken out on him. Life is


pretty rough. The Secretary of State talks about anonymous complaints being a kind of safety valve, but that is not how it works in the North sea.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman does not give full credit to the Health and Safety Executive and its ability to investigate. If a health and safety risk, a breach of regulations or some other undesirable practice is drawn to the executive's attention, it has widespread powers to investigate, and it does so. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to give the impression that it is pointless for complaints to be drawn to the attention of the Health and Safety Executive, as I believe that that would be very damaging to the cause of safety. It is not pointless, and I want to encourage the making of complaints to the HSE, so that they can be investigated properly.
As I have said, we shall take into account everything that has been said this afternoon, and also what is said in another place, before finally determining our attitude to the legislation that is being presented in another place.

Mr. Blair: If we tabled an amendment in Committee to deal with the victimisation point, and if that amendment was in order, would the Secretary of State at least undertake to accept it?

Mr. Howard: If that is possible—which I doubt—we shall of course give it careful consideration. The hon. Gentleman may conclude, however, that the legislation being presented in another place is a more promising vehicle, although I do not think that it is very satisfactory in its present state.
Let me make a further point about victimisation. If a safety representative has been victimised to the point of being unable to carry out his functions, the installation operator and owner are in breach of the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989 as things stand, and enforcement action can be taken on that basis.
Other recommendations involving work force involvement in safety are aimed principally at the industry: they refer to the involvement of the whole work force, the role of first-line supervisors and line management. These matters are an essential part of an effective safety management system, recommended by Lord Cullen as one of the key features of the safety case. These recommendations will be implemented by the forthcoming safety case regulations and accompanying guidance. I shall outline the purpose of the safety case in a moment; the Health and Safety Commission is making this its first priority.
The task before us is extensive. Lord Cullen himself said recently that
nobody could underestimate the magnitude of the task which faces the Health and Safety Executive".
Much, therefore, remains to be done, in particular to improve and reform the existing health and safety legislation which applies to offshore installations.
Lord Cullen saw two main elements. First, regulations should be made to require the operator of every offshore installation, fixed or mobile, to submit a "safety case" for acceptance by the Health and Safety Executive. I repeat that that is taking top priority. The commission plans to issue a consultative document, with draft regulations and guidance, on 24 February. The new regulations would be implemented progressively for new and existing installations, starting in 1993.
The second main element recommended by Lord Cullen was that existing offshore health and safety legislation should be progressively replaced by new regulations. Those new regulations should set operators objectives to be achieved, rather than prescribing detailed measures to be taken. Lord Cullen called them "goal-setting" regulations. They will underpin the new safety case regime by defining the necessary standards to apply to every installation.
The purpose of the Bill is to pave the way for the second of those main legislative tasks—the reform of existing offshore health and safety legislation. In doing so, it implements recommendation 18 of Lord Cullen's report, and enables new regulations to be developed by the Health and Safety Commission to implement many other recommendations. The Bill is an essential step towards constructing the new goal-setting regulatory regime. It will not of itself alter the existing regime; it deals with the technical legal changes that are necessary to allow the development of the goal-setting regime to take place. It is an important first stage in the process.
Let me now briefly outline the main provisions of the Bill. The primary objective of clause 1 is to make existing offshore safety legislation into what the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 refers to as "existing statutory provisions". That will allow the existing offshore safety legislation to be replaced progressively by new regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.
Clause 2 extends the "general purposes" of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to cover the safety of onshore pipelines and the prevention of damage to such pipelines; and the protection of the public from the dangers of the transmission and use of gas.
Clause 3 contains a number of provisions consequential on clauses 1 and 2. The principal change removes any requirement for the Secretary of State for Energy to consider safety when exercising his licensing functions. This is to effect the "clean break" between the Secretary of State for Energy's petroleum exploration and development licensing regime and health and safety, as recommended by Lord Cullen. But clause 7(3) provides for revocation to come into force only by my order. I can give the House an assurance that that will not be done until the safety case regulations are in place, considerably strengthening the safety regime.
The Government have also taken the opportunity presented by the Bill to introduce measures relating to penalties for health and safety offences, security and application of the Bill's provisions to Northern Ireland.

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way on clause 4?

Mr. Howard: I am just coming to clause 4, if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself.
I know that many right hon. and hon. Members are particularly interested in clause 4, which deals with penalties for certain health and safety offences, whether on or offshore. Prosecution is, of course, only one of the enforcement tools available to inspectors. But prosecutions have an important part to play and the Government continue to be committed to good health and safety standards, supported by significant penalties for those who fail to meet those standards. The main provisions in the clause will raise the maximum penalties in two categories.
The first category of offences is under sections 2 to 6 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, for which the


maximum fine that a magistrates court may impose will be increased from £2,000 to £20,000. The maximum penalty for these offences in a Crown court of an unlimited fine will remain unaffected. Offences under these sections are likely to be more serious than other offences, and therefore more deserving of a higher penalty, because cases are brought under them when there is a general failure to manage health and safety adequately.
The second category of offences is failure to comply with an improvement or prohibition notice, or to comply with a court remedy order made under section 42 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. For these offences, the penalties on conviction will be increased in a magistrates court from the current maximum of £2,000 to a maximum fine of £20,000, or six months imprisonment, or both. On conviction in a Crown court, these offences will carry a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine or two years imprisonment, or both. These offences are especially serious because they show at best culpable neglect and at worst deliberate flouting of a duty under law by the employers, despite specific issues having been brought to their attention by an inspector. Of course, the increased maximum penalties will also apply to cases taken in sheriff courts in Scotland. I suspect that that may be the point that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) wishes to raise.

Dr. Godman: Will the Secretary of State confirm that under this clause proceedings can be instituted in sheriff courts in Scotland and, perhaps, in the High Court? With regard to the Piper Alpha tragedy, many of us firmly believe that the directors of Occidental should have been brought to the High Court in Edinburgh to face a charge of culpable homicide. That was not possible, because there is no vicarious responsibility in cases of this kind. The Secretary of State mentioned Crown courts in England and sheriff courts in Scotland, but what of the High Court in Scotland?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is raising a slightly different point when he introduces the issue of vicarious liability. I shall have to check the precise jurisdiction of the High Court in Scotland on these matters, but in England proceedings can be brought in both magistrates courts and Crown courts, depending upon the seriousness of the offence.

Mr. Dalyell: It would be unreasonable to expect the Secretary of State to make pronouncements on Scots law, but it would be useful if there were to be a statement from the Crown Office on its attitude to these matters. They are not hypothetical but very real and very important matters.

Mr. Howard: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—who is on the Front Bench at the moment, will have heard the hon. Gentleman's question and will no doubt take it into consideration.
Every accident is a tragedy not just for the person injured but for family, friends and colleagues. Accident prevention must be the first priority for employers, workers and the regulatory bodies. These new penalties are a signal to those with health and safety duties that the Government are determined that those duties should be taken seriously.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that responsibility both for the safety case and for the safety of workers and sub-contractors' employees will always remain with the employer and the operator and that in no sense will the health and safety inspectorate take responsibility?

Mr. Howard: Not only does safety remain the responsibility of the operator, but the purpose of the legislation is to reinforce that responsibility and to increase the penalties for failure to discharge it.
Clause 5 deals with security of oil and gas installations. Similar statutory provision already exists for the telecommunications, electricity and water industries. The clause is closely modelled on those provisions, which have proved satisfactory to date.
The purpose of the clause is to empower the Secretary of State—in this case my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary—to issue directions to operators of an offshore installation, onshore terminal or oil refinery to maintain their security. Before issuing any such directions, the Home Secretary would be required to consult the operator concerned and the Health and Safety Executive.
Clause 6 deals with the parliamentary mechanism for extending the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has a separate system of health and safety law, and it is therefore appropriate for the Bill's provisions to be applied to Northern Ireland as necessary by a separate Order in Council. Clause 6 provides for the use of the negative resolution procedure, enabling this to be done with the minimum possible delay soon after the Great Britain legislation becomes effective.
Clause 7 deals principally with the short title of the Bill and the necessary repeals. For the most part, the Bill will come into effect on Royal Assent. The exceptions are those parts dealing with the model clauses—to which I have already referred—and those parts dealing with gas safety. Clause 7 also limits the application of the Bill to Great Britain.
I hope that I have left the House in no doubt that the Government intend to fulfil their commitment to implement all of Lord Cullen's recommendations. The Bill and the Health and Safety Commission's forthcoming consultative document on the safety case regulations are evidence of our concern and intention to implement as fast as we possibly can. Where specific proposals are not being implemented at once it is for good and valid reasons. Our priority is to set in hand, as soon as possible, the major safety improvements recommended by Lord Cullen, and that is what we are doing.
The Bill is an important part of the implementation of the recommendations of the Cullen report on the Piper Alpha disaster, providing for the highest standards of offshore safety for those who work in our vital oil, gas and related industries. It is an essential underpinning of the offshore safety regime, outlined and recommended by Lord Cullen, and depending on the integrity, commitment and excellence of our Health and Safety Commission and Health and Safety Executive. I recommend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Tony Blair: This is an important Bill, and at the outset I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friends, both Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members, who have done so much to campaign on the issues relative to it. Their work has been of invaluable assistance throughout.
On 6 July 1988, on the Piper Alpha platform, there occurred the worst disaster in the history of offshore oil production. Of the 226 men working on the platform, 165 died. A further two—members of the crew of the Sandhaven fast-rescue craft—were killed in a brave attempt to rescue survivors. Following the obvious and natural public outcry over the disaster, an inquiry was established. Chaired by Lord Cullen, it lasted more than a year. Lord Cullen's report has rightly been the object of very wide praise, and in this regard I entirely concur with the remarks made by the Secretary of State. Lord Cullen made 106 recommendations about improvement of the offshore oil safety regime for the North sea. This Bill represents one part of the implementation of the Cullen recommendations. Although there are reservations, and in one case an important addition that we would canvass, we support the Bill in general, of course, and want to see it introduced quickly.
North sea oil is, and has been, of fundamental significance to the United Kingdom economy. It generates wealth to the Exchequer, profit to the oil companies, and employment for many thousands of people. However, it must be said that oil production is a frontier industry. Its employees work in extreme conditions, often in circumstances of great danger, and in a market that is both volatile and highly competitive. There must be no possibility at any time of profit being put before the welfare of those in the industry who create the profit. Those brave men and women who work offshore are entitled to the highest possible standards of safety and to the full guarantee of the state that it will police those standards, enforce them rigorously and prosecute any who break them.
The Piper Alpha disaster revealed failures in the formulation and application of those standards at almost every level—failures in the safety systems, in the personnel implementing them, and in Government supervision of them. The Cullen report pointed out those failures, and its recommendations were designed to deal with them. The central point that we would make, however, is that it is not merely in the form of legislation or in the writing of the rules that safety will be secured. The form must be accompanied by the content, and the writing by insistence on implementation down the line on the offshore platforms, where it really matters.
I recall very clearly becoming the shadow Secretary of State for Energy shortly after the Piper Alpha disaster. Obviously, the matter was very much in the minds of all those working in the industry. It became clear to me, first, that, certainly at a senior executive level, a severe shock had been suffered throughout the industry as a result of Piper Alpha. There was total commitment, on paper at any rate, to a review of safety procedures. But, equally—and this is the point—the men working on the platforms were often faced with down-the-line management which was under enormous pressure and which the men said was willing to take liberties with the rules. I think that I am

right in saying that about two thirds of those working on the Piper Alpha platform were contractors not directly in the employment of the companies themselves.
We can have the very best onshore safety procedures in the world, but they are useless unless they are followed by managers offshore, down the line. It should be said that there is still considerable concern among the men about whether the theoretical commitment of senior management to offshore safety is shared by all those who have the practical job of implementing it and extracting the oil.
A claim made repeatedly throughout the Cullen inquiry, by trade unions and others representing the men, was that there was widespread intimidation of employees with respect to safety matters. In particular, it was claimed that those raising safety issues could in certain instances be regarded as troublemakers, and the letters "NRB"—not required back—could be entered on their employment card. It is said that those subject to NRB were, and are, effectively black-listed in respect of employment. It is in the nature of those claims that they are difficult to prove, but it is clear that they exist and are genuinely believed by many working in the industry, and often by those representing the workers.
Such feelings were bound to be especially acute when, in many cases, the men were denied the full involvement of their trade unions at the workplace even though they believed that such involvement was an essential part of the guarantee of good safety standards. I simply say to the Secretary of State that these pressures still exist. Indeed, they may well intensify, as, I understand, a feature of the most recent oil exploration and production is that, although the amount extracted will be greater, and although the production period will be longer than was originally thought, the new developments tend to be on smaller fields. Therefore, the costs of extraction are greater, and pressure on profit and cost is more intense. That is why we must examine all related issues raised with a determined scepticism to ensure that the fine promises made are delivered in the necessary way.
The accident on Piper Alpha occurred at about 10 pm on 6 July when there was an explosion in the C module caused by the ignition of a low-level cloud of condensate that had leaked from the condensate injection pump. One pump had tripped and another pump, A pump, was started up. Unknown to the operators, the pump had been shut down for maintenance and its pressure safety valve was off. Instead, at the site of that valve was a blind flange assembly, which should have been leak tight. However, it was not, so the condensate escaped. The operators should have known of the unsuitability of the pump through the permit-to-work system by which essential work is regulated through permits. In this instance, the permit to work had been suspended as the maintenance work was incomplete, but it appears that that fact was not properly communicated to the operators.
The condensate that leaked ignited and the explosion in C module led to a fire in B module about 20 minutes later—at about 10.20 pm there was a second explosion. As the Cullen report found, there was no systematic attempt to evacuate accommodation. Survivors essentially made their own escape; there were problems with standby vessels, and training for evacuation and fire fighting. It would not be putting it too strongly to say that those who survived did so mainly through luck and their own devices.
There were failures within the safety system, and of procedures for dealing with the consequences of a disaster


once it had occurred. Responsibility for policing the offshore safety regimes of the oil companies on the platforms lay mainly with the Department of Energy, although other organisations did have some locus in relation to different safety aspects.
In his report, Lord Cullen dealt with the record of the Department of Energy in relation to inspections on Piper Alpha by saying that the findings of inspections done in the year preceding the disaster as a result of an earlier incident.
were in striking contrast to what was revealed in evidence at the Inquiry. Even after making allowance for the fact that the inspections were based on sampling it was clear to me that they were superficial to the point of being of little use as a test of safety on the platform. They did not reveal a number of clear cut and readily ascertainable deficiencies. While the effectiveness of inspections has been affected by persistent under-manning and inadequate guidance, the evidence led me to question, in a fundamental sense, whether the type of inspection practised by the Department of Energy could be an effective means of assessing or monitoring the management of safety by operators.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: My hon. Friend may not be aware that, prior to the Piper Alpha disaster, divers' associations, in evidence to the Select Commmittee on Energy, expressed concern that the programme of inspection and maintenance was influenced by the price of oil. If the price dropped, inspections were shoved back towards the five-year period and did not take place annually as they should have done. Will the Minister say whether that practice still exists?

Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is anxiety throughout the industry that, in a volatile market where profits fluctuate tremendously with the price of oil, there is always a danger that corners are cut. I mention to the Secretary of State, although I do not expect an immediate response, that there has been concern among deep sea divers about the effect of European safety regulations on the operations of deep sea divers. Perhaps if I or one of my hon. Friends writes to him he will investigate the matter.
There can hardly have been a more comprehensive criticism of each stage of the procedures affecting safety than that made by Lord Cullen. His recommendations bear out the severity of the criticism and cover every part of the operations. Although this is something of an oversimplification, there are effectively two parts to Lord Cullen's recommendations: first, the transfer of regulatory powers from the Department of Energy and other organisations to the Health and Safety Executive, and the full application of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 to offshore work; secondly, the development of a new regime of offshore safety, through the formulation of safety cases prepared by platform operators in respect of each installation, to be certified by the Health and Safety Executive, which will cover all aspects of offshore safety.
Trade unions, many of my hon. Friends and other interested parties have long campaigned for the Health and Safety Executive to undertake responsibility for offshore safety and the regulations previously in the hands of the Department of Engery. The Burgoyne committee produced a minority report more than a decade ago, under the lead of two trade union representatives, Mr. Lyons and Mr. Miller. It specifically called for such a transfer to be

made. Clause I of the Bill is designed to achieve that aim which we clearly welcome. The Bill should enable a much clearer chain of command and implement the idea of one agency to cover all aspects of safety.
The Health and Safety Executive will bring forward regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Safety will be central to those regulations, which will deal both with the design of the operation and its safety procedures, including the permit-to-work system and temporary safe refuge.

Mr. Dalyell: I am not a great one for saying, I told you so" but, following discussions with Mr. Miller, I had an Adjournment debate on the precise subject of the minority report. I urged the Government of the day to do exactly as he wished. Had that been done, the story might have been a little less tragic.

Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point in respect of the transfer of the safety regulations to the Health and Safety Executive. The position was always strange and unsatisfactory, first, because the Department of Energy was close to the producer interest and, secondly, a plethora of organisations, not just the Department of Energy, dealt with safety aspects. It was unsatisfactory that more than one agency should handle safety matters.
The safety cases are due to be updated every three to five years. In addition, new regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act cover construction, fire fighting and standby vessels—all aspects in which key problems were identified. Another secton of the safety case will involve training for emergencies—an important deficiency recognised by Lord Cullen.
There is one conceptual difference between the Cullen recommendations and the usual method of procedure: the notion of the regulations being not prescriptive, but goal-setting, so that their flexibility allows them to deal with varying circumstances. Judgments will be made as to the practical effect of each safety case in turn rather than an attempt being made to legislate for every last detail.
That process may be sensible, but it will surely have the consequence of contralising the inspection and enforcement procedures of the regulatory organisation. It is a judgmental system and it will require the most careful investigation before a judgment is made. That, in turn, puts pressure on the staff and financing of the Health and Safety Executive.
We have been told that, by 1994–95, the section of the Health and Safety Executive that deals with offshore safety will have a budget of about £35 million and staff of more than 400. I trust that those additional staff and resources will not be taken from anywhere else in the Health and Safety Executive. The programme should be carried through as quickly as possible. By 1994–95 it will be six years or more since the Piper Alpha disaster. I appreciate that there have been staff recruitment problems, but the additional staff should be in place as soon as possible. If the process is to involve goal-setting regulations, rather than prescriptive procedures, it is vital that there are the necessary staff and resources to implement the proposal properly.
There are two substantial points about the detail of the Bill. Clause 5 will permit the Secretary of State to give directions to preserve the security of any installation. He is then obliged to lay before Parliament a copy of the direction


unless he is of the opinion that disclosure of the direction is against the interests of national security or the commercial interests of any person.
The Secretary of State knows that concern has been expressed in the other place about a possible conflict between the issue of safety, the security of the installation and the direction that might be given under clause 5. That makes scrutiny of any direction all the more important. To protect it for national security is one thing, but to protect it for commercial interests is another. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
The second fundamental point became the subject of exchanges during the speech by the Secretary of State. Unless there is action, we must register strong disagreement with the Government's course. Recommendation No. 30, one of Lord Cullen's crucial recommendations, was that safety representatives should be protected against victimisation by a provision similar to section 58 of the Employment Protection Act 1978. It is important to understand that section 58 protects employees against dismissal for trade union activities. Most importantly, it also provides that the two-year qualifying period to claim unfair dismissal does not apply in the circumstances of dismissal for trade union activities. The protection is immediate and the penalties are far larger than those for ordinary cases of unfair dismissal.
Lord Cullen believed that immediate protection should apply in respect of complaints about safety as it applies in respect of dismissal for trade union activities. That is vital because if a safety representative can be dismissed or disciplined because of complaints about safety, a major part of the safety regime is subject to collapse. Recommendation No. 30 is missing from the Bill.
We have heard the explanation from the Secretary of State today. If there is truly a procedural bar, we should investigate it carefully because I cannot believe that it is beyond our wit to frame an acceptable amendment which would implement recommendation No. 30. We will do our best to frame such an amendment.
The more substantive point made by the Secretary of State is that victimisation is an employment issue rather than a safety issue. In our view, it is plainly a health and safety matter if someone is victimised as a result of complaining about health and safety matters. It is an employment matter, but it is also a matter that has a direct bearing on the efficacy of the safety regime. If people can be disciplined in such a way, clearly there is something deeply wrong with the safety regime that is being implemented by the company. The Secretary of State has not given an acceptable reason for not legislating.

Dr. Godman: The fears of offshore workers are widespread. At my most recent surgery, a constituent came to see me with a specific concern and complaint about standby vessels and the unsuitability of some of them. He implored me to give no suggestion of his identity and he said that even referring to a "constituent" might place his job in some jeopardy. Those decent, honourable and fine men are very frightened of the wrath of their employers if they bring complaints to light, even to Members of Parliament in their surgeries.

Mr. Blair: The House will have heard my hon. Friend's point. Hon. Members who have constituents who work offshore are familiar with such cases. It is deeply worrying that such practices continue. My hon. Friend underlines the point that I have sought to make, which is that,

however many regulations one has, if there is not proper protection for people making complaints, it becomes difficult for the regulations to be implemented. It is a matter of deep concern.
I met some people in Newcastle a short time ago who work offshore. They had no axe to grind, but they believed that they had been subject to blacklisting by companies as a result of trade union activities or for raising matters in relation to safety. It is in the nature of things that such claims are difficult to prove. However, the clamour and the degree of complaint are such that we should be unwise to treat the matter other than seriously.
The absence of a clause embodying recommendation No. 30 is a considerable worry. North sea oil contracts are often short-term contracts, so it is especially important that such a clause is included. Procedural matters may be involved, but I believe that the clause should be added because its absence will have an effect both on the estimation of the Government's sincerity in introducing the Bill and on the efficacy of the regime as a whole.
No prosecution has resulted from the Piper Alpha disaster, and it would not be right to complete a Second Reading debate without raising that point. I am advised that a prosecution could have been brought either under the specific regulations dealing with offshore matters or under the general provisions of the health and safety legislation relating to safe places of work and to safe systems of work. The case was fairly clear. On the basis of the Cullen report, the permit-to-work system was subject to repeated failures, the fire water system was flawed in spite of an audit recommendation before the disaster that it should be changed, and the training for emergencies was deficient. In general, Lord Cullen found that the Occidental management
adopted a superficial attitude to the assessment of the risk of major hazard.
In those circumstances, it is scarcely believable that no prima facie case could be found against the company or against anyone connected with it in relation to the disaster. I ask the Minister to deal with the point about the absence of prosecutions when he winds up the debate.
We seek answers on the staffing and resources of the Health and Safety Executive, the impact of clause 5 on the safety regime, the absence of the Cullen report's recommendation No. 30 and the failure to prosecute. Those matters do not vitiate our support for the Bill, but they are serious and they require answers. Those points bring us back to the recurring theme of all debates since the Piper Alpha disaster. The Piper Alpha disaster arose out of massive deficiencies of safety management, supervision and regulation. On the face of it, the Government are committed to remedying those deficiencies in accordance with the Cullen report. However, among many who work in the industry, whatever the Government's acceptance in theory of the need for radical change, there remains doubt about the practical implementation of that radical change.
It would be wrong not to welcome the Bill, but it would equally be wrong not to signal eternal vigilance on our part until every last recommendation of the Cullen inquiry is implemented and acted on so that the 30,000 people or more who even now work offshore to produce the nation's oil do so in conditions of safety. They deserve no less.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I welcome the Government's commitment to offshore safety not only on my own account, but on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) who, because of his ministerial responsibility, cannot speak on the matter although he has it very much at heart.
I was glad that the Government immediately accepted the 106 recommendations of the Cullen report. It always seemed to me a rum do that safety was not in the hands of the Health and Safety Executive and I am glad that one of the first things that the Government did in April 1991 was to take administrative steps to remedy the situation. I am glad that the Bill, which will transfer statutory responsibility, is before the House.
I am glad that the penalties are to be so substantially increased and that they are to include a hefty slice of imprisonment. People working in an industry as wealthy as the oil industry might turn up their noses at a fine, or brush it off light-heartedly. They will not brush off a term of imprisonment of six months, still less of two years. As the Minister said, those who are culpably negligent, despite the instructions of the inspectors, deserve the maximum sentence of two years.
I would not do the job that these men do for all the tea in China. They are quite exceptionally brave, not just on the rigs but in travelling to and from them. It must be a nightmare for them and it must be at the back of their families' minds. I hope that the helicopters by which they are transported will be examined most carefully.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Lady has made a good point about the penalties for the breach of health and safety regulations. What penalties would she think it appropriate to apply to a company found to have discriminated against an employee because he has raised a safety concern?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I should have thought that that was a matter to be dealt with in the Bill that will probably come before this House, which is currently before their Lordships. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, that Bill may be amended to cover such matters. I should have thought that there should be a substantial fine, but that will be for the other place to decide and for us to consider when the Bill comes before us.
One matter that has been raised with me repeatedly—although I do not have as many constituents engaged in offshore activity as some hon. Members—is the ease with which work permits could be obtained, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred in his opening remarks. It seemed to me that one could more or less get one in the pub, in exchange for a packet of fags, and I wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor on the matter.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Perhaps the hon. Lady is referring not to permits to work—issued under a regime operated on the platforms themselves—but to the necessary safety certificates required before people can work offshore.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman is much better informed about these things than I am. He is exactly right that that was the point that I raised with the previous Secretary of State. It is extremely important.
Like the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), I agree with the Minister that it is a good idea to set

operators objectives to be achieved but not to set out exactly how that should be done. Offshore installations vary widely in their conditions, and an inflexible regime would not be as effective as the one proposed in the Bill, which is flexible but none the less strict.
I hope that the Bill will bring to a group of extremely brave men and women safety and the peace of mind that must have been blown away by the horrible Piper Alpha incident and others, and I wish the Bill godspeed.

Mr. Robert Hughes: All hon. Members realise that the Bill has arisen out of the worst possible North sea tragedy at Piper Alpha. The survivors and the relatives of those who died live and relive that horrendous event and cannot erase the trauma from their minds. Nor should we seek to do so. We have an awesome and enormous responsibility to ensure that every effort is made to avoid the peril of such an incident ever being repeated.
The offshore industry is probably unique, both in the hostile environment in which it operates and in its employment practices. The seventh report of the Select Committee on Energy in 1990–91 points out that at that time the offshore work force in the United Kingdom sector was more than 36,000. Of those, only 25 per cent. were oil company employees. The Select Committee drew attention to the fact that half the offshore installations registered in the United Kingdom are owned and operated by contractors. Some 50 to 90 per cent. of the work force on those platforms is made up of contractors, some of them working under very short-term contracts—for a few days or a few weeks—and some under long-term contracts.
A number of conclusions can be drawn from that experience. There are pluses and minuses in the way in which the offshore industry operates. There is a floating population of people who move from platform to platform and take their experience with them. It can be argued that that is a benefit and is good for the safety regime because people pick up experience as they move. On the other hand, one of the problems is that many of the individual oil companies have developed their own safety systems, and confusion sometimes arises as between one practice and the other. We certainly need some uniform guidelines in the industry.
The United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association has helped with guidelines on training and so on and on the permit-to-work system. Work has also been done to try to achieve greater uniformity between operators on emergency warnings and such matters, and that can certainly bring a net safety benefit.
There is widespread concern, however, about the squeeze on tender prices. Since the drop in oil prices in 1986, contractors have found that their competitive bids have been under intense pressure, and the work force has been the first to suffer. Its remuneration has been squeezed, in real terms, to the levels that it reached during the peak offshore construction periods of the 1970s. Conditions are actually worse than they were then. With contractors having their margins squeezed, everything has had to be pared and corners have had to be cut. There is real and widespread concern that the margins are so small that safety will suffer.
It has also been pointed out that one of the problems arising from the shortage of the margin in tendering is that


good-quality standby vessels are lying idle while inferior vessels are still in use. In some cases, licences have been withdrawn, and that is good. But the standby vessel system is still not as it should be.
It is indicative of the way in which these things operate—although to a certain extent this is a peripheral point—that many offshore vessels are built abroad. I asked a prominent Aberdeen trawler owner who is now in standby vessels—to spare his blushes, I shall not mention his name—"Why not build new vessels, and build them in Britain?" His answer was simple, blunt and straightforward: "I will build new vessels, and I will build them in Britain, if I get a good enough subsidy from the Government." If that is the attitude of those responsible for supplying standby vessels offshore, it should be deprecated.
It would be churlish not to recognise that there have been improvements in general safety offshore. Anyone who said that nothing had changed would have his credibility as a witness to argue and advocate the case for safety destroyed.
In general terms, I welcome the Bill, although I am not wholly convinced that the abandonment of detailed regulations in favour of the safety case is absolutely correct. I have my doubts and am hesitant about that. I still believe that the regulatory regime should be more strict in terms of practices. However, I accept the path down which we are to proceed. I shall do everything to ensure that the safety case works. There is no reason now or in the recent past to condemn the safety case outright. We must give it a good try and make sure that it works because so much is at stake if it does not work. I pay tribute to the industry for what it has done so far. I hope that it will consider the safety issue with continued vigour and that it will always be alert to the dangers.
One would expect unanimous enthusiastic support for the provisions in the Bill. There is certainly support, but there is a glaring anomaly and deficiency in the Bill. There is still no legal protection against unfair dismissal of safety representatives or trade unionists. That is a matter of great concern and disquiet. That lack of protection is extremely unhealthy for the safety regime. That problem could so easily be corrected and the fears dispelled if it were not for the Government's blinkered ideology. That is the only reason why they are not dealing with protection against victimisation.
As the Front-Bench spokesmen and others have said, proving victimisation is extremely difficult. We have all heard of cases in which people have been dismissed where it is almost impossible to prove with certainty that there has been victimisation. I want to summarise case S/3497/91, an industrial tribunal case which took place in Aberdeen on 28 November of last year. It was a claim for unfair dismissal by Mr. Douglas Steele against Srnedvig Limited of Altens in Aberdeen.
Mr. Steele was dismissed for an alleged serious breach of safety regulations on 5 June 1991. He had been employed as a lead hand with the company since 3 May 1988. He had been working on rig 1, north-west Sutton, where it had been reported that he and another man had been seen to cross handrails separating rig 2 from the helideck on rig 1. Mr. Steele was interviewed by Mr. Richman—I hope that I have pronounced his name properly—who was the senior tool pusher on rig one.
Mr. Steele admitted that he had crossed the handrails, but said that that was a common practice and was a short cut. Mr. Richman telephoned Mr. Coyle onshore, and it

was decided that Mr. Steele should be removed immediately from the platform and that his dismissal should be discussed once he was onshore. If I have read the tribunal report correctly, before he left the rig, he was given a reference from Mr. Richman which concluded by wishing Mr. Steele well in his future employment. That is a back-handed way of saying that Mr. Steele had been given the sack.
Mr. Steele was dismissed and no action was taken against the other person who had been seen with Mr. Steele crossing the handrail. In fact, as the tribunal reports, the other individual was retained by the company and subsequently promoted to fill the vacancy left by Mr. Steele's dismissal. That is very odd. The tribunal found no clear evidence that Mr. Steele or anyone else had been warned about the dangers of crossing the handrail or that crossing the handrail was an offence that could lead to instant dismissal.
At this point, I want to interject a few comments. I accept that it can be argued—and I would argue—that safety is a matter for every individual, whatever his or her particular job may be. I accept that workers should be aware that crossing a safety rail is dangerous. It is obviously there for a specific purpose. I do not dissent from the general proposition that safety is as much a matter of individual responsibility as of corporate responsibility.
However, if a dangerous practice is commonplace, that represents a serious defect in the safety procedures. The employer's immediate response should be to investigate the circumstances fully so that such a breach does not recur in future. The tribunal evidence clearly shows that the company did not follow up the matter prior to Mr. Steele's summary dismissal.
The tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair and Mr. Steele was awarded £11,925 compensation which was reduced by 25 per cent. as it was held that he had contributed to his dismissal. The company has said that there is no job available for Mr. Steele. Mr. Steele and the tribunal accepted that the downturn in offshore operations meant that he would be unable to get work elsewhere.
An industrial tribunal simply records the facts. It makes no judgment or comment on an extraordinary case. Mr. Steele was summarily dismissed for breaches of safety procedure. The other offender took over his job temporarily until the end of the trip and was then permanently promoted to the job for the next trip offshore. What possible explanation can there be for what I can only describe as that company's complete irresponsibility?
A clue to the answer to that question might be found in point D on page 2 of the tribunal report which states:
There was no evidence to support the suggestion in his originating application that there had been some kind of plot to get rid of the applicant and equally there was nothing to show that his election as a safety representative was a reason for his dismissal.
The man certainly believes that he was dismissed because he was a safety representative. That charge was not pursued at the industrial tribunal. I checked to discover why and Mr. Steele's lawyers said the case for unfair dismissal was so strong and clear-cut in its own right that there was no point in pursuing victimisation because that is much more difficult to prove. If one were to lose that part of the case, one might lose the whole case for unfair dismissal. Therefore, the case was pursued simply on the ground of unfair dismissal. There is, however, little doubt


that Mr. Steele was sacked because he was a safety representative. In fact, the company has said so. The company tried to stop the man from receiving benefit after he had been sacked. It wrote to say that he was dismissed because he was a safety representative. It then tried to cover its back by claiming that his was an exemplary sacking. He was sacked because he was a safety representative and, although that was not victimisation, an example was made of him.
The company might be entitled to say that someone who breaches a safety regulation should not be a safety representative. That might have been a reasonable conclusion. It might also have been reasonable for the company to say to Mr. Steele, "Well, we no longer accept you as an elected safety representative." Further, it might have been all right for the company to tell those who elected him, "We have no more confidence in him as a safety representative, do you want fresh elections?" That at least would have been open and above board and it might have been sustainable if the matter had been handled in that way. However, what happened does nothing to dispel the widespread feeling offshore that to become a safety representative is to put one's head on the chopping block. Every excuse will be used to get rid of a safety representative. That is certainly true if trade unionists are involved in safety work. Sooner or later that leads to dismissal. Sooner or later an excuse will be found to get rid of those people.
If someone loses a job in those circumstances, it will be almost impossible to find another job. Companies put their hands on their hearts and swear that there is no victimisation or blacklist. They say that it is unfortunate that there is a downturn in the industry and there are not many jobs to go around. If a safety representative has been sacked and his face did not fit, companies say that it is just hard luck and coincidence that no other work is available. Many of the people affected are highly skilled and they have great experience of the industry. They find it very hard not to believe that such things are happening because they are safety representatives. It is not good enough for companies to behave in that way if they are to dispel the current climate of distrust.
Lord Cullen's recommendation 30 is quite unambiguous. It states:
Safety representatives should be protected against victimisation by a provision similar to Section 58(i)(b) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (para 21.86).
That provision deals with trade union representation. It states that the dismissal of an employee shall be considered unfair if the reason for it is that the employee
had taken part, or proposed to take part, in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time.
That provision has not been carried forward in the Bill any more than the issue of the protection of safety representatives. Given that recommendation 30 has not been implemented—it must be the only one that has not—one can hardly expect people to believe that there is no conspiracy within the industry to blacklist people. People have good grounds for believing that the Government have a marvellous opportunity to make major changes in legislation on offshore safety, but they have left it out of

the Bill. People are saying that the Government are tacitly accepting that there can be blacklisting. The Government must do something.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): Lest there is any mistake, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not intend it, but I am concerned that he is using words such as "conspiracy". My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made it very clear a few moments ago at the Dispatch Box that it was our intention to legislate thoroughly, comprehensively and effectively in this matter as soon as we properly can. His judgment and his advice was that this Bill was not an appropriate vehicle by which to do that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept our good faith. It is our intention to legislate properly on this matter as soon as we reasonably can.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. It leads me to the point that I was about to make.
It will not do for the Government simply to say that they are not ignoring the recommendations on victimisation. It will not do for the Government to say that the Bill is not an appropriate medium. It is a totally false distinction that this is a safety Bill and that the protection of safety representatives and unionists is an employment measure. That just will not wash. All the rules and regulations, all the safety case assessments, and all the pious assertions that safety is paramount are hollow unless all those working offshore are fully committed to safety and unless all the trade unions and all those working offshore have confidence that their employment is not jeopardised if they commit themselves to exposing unsafe
Similarly, it is in the interests of good industrial relations if active trade unionists have protection from dismissal. We know that the Government's idea of good industrial relations is different from ours. Their idea of good industrial relations is either a non-union passive work force or a union work force who are passively willing to accept whatever indignities the employer wishes to impose upon them. A prerequisite for good industrial relations is the active participation of a vibrant and vigorous trade union movement. Such a trade union movement will lead to an improvement in the safety culture and confidence in the safety regime. It must be backed by strong anti-victimisation legislation to protect trade unionists in their general activities, not just in safety activities, because that is essential for safety representatives.
The Government have fallen down on the issue. I hope that they will amend the Bill accordingly. In today's proceedings, the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary said, "We have good faith; we would like to change it, but there are procedural difficulties." If there are procedural difficulties, they are of the Government's own making. The Government are responsible for drafting the long and short titles. The Bill states that it relates to health and safety matters "and connected purposes". Whether that would allow an amendment to be in order is neither here nor there. The Government could table an amendment to include an appropriate provision.
The Secretary of State, anxious to show how open-minded he is, fell into a trap of his own making. First, he said that Baroness Turner of Camden was bringing forward a Bill in another place to deal with that


point. He said that her Bill was ineffective, deficient and technically incompetent and that therefore there was no route down that way. Secondly, he said that he did not want to put such a provision in this Bill because Baroness Turner's Bill provided a better avenue and a better approach. He cannot have it both ways. Either Baroness Turner's Bill is no good or it is. He argued himself into a corner.
However, I agree with the Secretary of State that there is no case for delay in implementing recommendation 30. He could still do so by amending the long and short titles. He knows that the safety culture and the whole issue of safety in the North sea is a matter of confidence, a matter of people being prepared to work together, and a matter of being prepared to show that they are serious about safety. Anything which leads people to a mood of distrust and fear is to be deprecated.
The Secretary of State has an opportunity with this Bill. Almost at a stroke he could dispel concern and fear by introducing legislation to put the matter right. He says that he wants to do it, but the only thing that is holding him up is the title of the Bill. It will not wash. That is a great pity. He has missed this opportunity to remedy a wrong which is long since overdue to be put right. Let him now use the opportunity to do so.

Mr. David Porter: The House last debated offshore safety on 7 March last year. I felt then that there was a danger that everyone would think that gas and oil are available only from Scotland. I do not feel that that will be the case tonight, as there are so few Scottish Members present. I felt that it was important to emphasise then, and I do so again now, that there is an important sector of this great British industry—

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Porter: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).

Mr. Salmond: I am sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) will speak straight after me, but I assure the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not in a position to give such assurances. Will he get on?

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman must have noticed that while, admittedly, there is a sparse attendance on both sides of the House, there are four Opposition Members from Scotland present but there are no Conservative Members from Scotland present.

Mr. Porter: I had certainly noticed that, but the point that I was trying to make was that in the debate on 7 March, hon. Members spoke as though we were discussing a Scottish industry. The point that I made—there were some nods of agreement from Opposition Members—when we started to talk about moving the offshore safety division headquarters to Aberdeen was that there was and is a very important sector of the industry in the southern North sea—[Interruption.] I speak for the southern North

sea sector, and that is the point that I am trying to make. It is clearly not as large as Scotland, but it makes a valuable contribution to the industry.
Locally, in my neighbouring port of Great Yarmouth and in my constituency port of Lowestoft, literally hundreds of jobs directly and indirectly depend on the offshore industry. Shell UK, for example, has been based at Lowestoft for more than 25 years. We reckon that it must have pumped directly and indirectly into the local economy more than half a billion pounds in that time. SLP—Sea-Land Pipelines—at Lowestoft has the biggest offshore module manfacturing capability south of Teesside. Clearly, that is another sector of the industry which is concerned about the Bill, and it is a big employer.
Smaller firms all over Waveney are dependent on the offshore industry. The offshore standby vessels that have been mentioned continue to employ large numbers of people, and Lowestoft has been the main base of the offshore standby industry ever since there has been such an industry. Equally, in Beccles, in my constituency, is the heliport of British International Helicopters, an absolutely vital part of the supplying, moving and equipping of the industry. Tragically, that company is one of those which have fallen victim to the grasping of the late Robert Maxwell. Coincidentally, I happen to be a member of the Select Committee on Social Security, which was considering occupational pensions when Robert Maxwell died. Now we are trying to do what we can to help BIH staff and others with their stolen pensions or—as I like to put it—we are trying to tear the mask off the unacceptable face of socialism. However, I stray from the Bill.
Since I became a Member of Parliament, and indeed before, I have heard the constant cry that there is some sort of conspiracy—the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) mentioned that word several times—to cut corners on safety among offshore operators and somehow to terrorise offshore workers into keeping silent on safety fears. We hear odd stories, but I challenge whether they are widespread. We hear stories at our surgeries, but are they truly widespread throughout the industry? Surely it is in no one's interests when there is an accident, or when a unit is put out of production or—in the case of Piper Alpha—is destroyed. The safety culture is not a luxury. It is not a bureaucratic imposition or an irrelevance. It is as essential as food and water. Surely we can all agree on that.
The Bill has rightly received a general welcome from all sides of the industry. I know that Shell was involved in ideas for its early drafting and, in so far as the Bill implements the Cullen recommendations, it will be absolutely accepted. Only when it is accepted will it be possible for it to work.
Tony Barrell, the chief executive of the Health and Safety Executive's new offshore safety division, reckons that the offshore industry
presents a uniquely concentrated combination of hazards.
He feels that it is his job to achieve an improvement in safety and to apply a continuing improving influence, as we have already witnessed in the nuclear and chemical industries. Further, Mr. Barrell believes that commitment to safety has to begin at board level and that what is good for safety is good for business. If clear objectives for safety are set out and then achieved it will be accepted and will work. I especially welcome the HSE's plans to increase staffing. It has been said that it will be increased to more


than 400 in three years' time. A proportion of that number will be working on research and I understand that there will be a real increase in the number of inspectors.
The argument for operators to produce individual safety cases is won on the one count alone—if not on all the others—that everyone concerned is and has to be involved.
Some people feel that training is insufficient and the lack of workers' voices is an often expressed worry. From what I have heard about the filling in of a blank sheet of paper handed to the offshore safety division of the HSE, in the wake of Cullen, I believe that they have those challenges very much in mind.
In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the charter. There has been an outbreak of charters in the North sea. Thirty-five thousand copies of a charter of rights have been printed and circulated to all offshore workers. Rights have to be linked with responsibilities and that is what the document, "Safety Representatives and Safety Committees—A Guide for Offshore Personnel" does precisely. The United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association is committed to the document, believing that it should lay to rest some of the stories that we have heard again tonight about victimisation and lack of commitment to safety. Even the union, Manufacturing Science Finance, has given it a cautious welcome.
There is also a widespread worry that the decline of our merchant shipping fleet is being reflected in the offshore support and standby vessels sector. Crews are being replaced by large numbers of Portuguese and Norwegians. There are Danish, German, Dutch and even Russian and Yugoslavian boats in the business. The fear is that with language problems and different safety cultures from our own we could need some measure to protect the British sector. However, we know the experience of trying to do that for British fishing through the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and its subsequent outlawing by the European Court. In any case, that is outside the Bill, but I felt that it was worth flagging up.
It is right for me to express a worry which has been mentioned widely in the other place. Since May 1991 the industry has been aware that the Government intended to introduce a security clause into the Bill—clause 5. The UKOOA view is that such legislation is unnecessary. The offshore industry has shown responsibility in the past in accepting proposals made by the security services for the provision of both physical forms of security and the establishment of security-related procedures and standards. It does not feel that such differences of opinion as may have arisen from time to time about the extent of those provisions need to have been dealt with by the blunt instrument which the Bill represents.
The upstream oil and gas industry is not a public service. It consists of private sector companies continuously involved in making economic judgments about the preservation of assets and the protection of employees. Many of them have to make such judgments on an international scale and are therefore familiar with international norms and risks. Therefore, they come from a background of informed analysis of their own position and interests. Anything thought to be necessary above

such provisions is a matter for the Government's judgment and they think that it should be subject to Government funding.
The industry is also concerned about the possibility of the coverage of the legislation being extended as time moves on. They have been provided with an initial list of installations which will be subject to it, including 18 onshore terminals and refineries, most of which are not designated national economic key points. Several of those are in the downstream sector. We have to be aware that there is a tendency to add to such lists. They believe that that should be done formally between Government and the industry and that the reasons for the inclusion of any further installations on the list should be made explicit.
Finally, the industry is concerned about what it calls "tests of reasonableness" regarding the application of legislation to particular sites. If the question of Government funding is to be resolved, a reasonable process of cost benefit analysis has to apply to decisions taken through the legislation at the request of the security services.
It has been right to dwell on those matters in some detail as they were put to me by Shell in my constituency, because they are so important. For more than 25 years, while the offshore industry has made an increasing contribution to the national wealth, it has become more complex and bigger in size and value. It can only get more so in the next 25 years, so the Bill is timely. I join my hon. Friends and others in hoping that we can get it on to the statute book as speedily and as safely as possible.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Like many other hon. Members, I have been calling for the transfer of offshore safety operations and their supervision from the Department of Energy to the Health and Safety Executive for a long time. Naturally, I welcome the fact that the Bill is formalising that process. Obviously my regret is that it was not done a great deal earlier. As I often said at the time, it was not necessarily a question of the Department of Energy being compromised, but that it was always seen to be compromised. That situation could not be sustained.
A number of hon. Members have properly referred to the fact that this legislation stems from Lord Cullen's report, which in turn stems from the tragedy of Piper Alpha. Those of us with constituents who were lost in that tragedy know too well that every time that that matter comes up for debate it reopens a great deal of agony and many wounds. It may seem a rather odd thing to say, but I hope that if there is any reporting of this debate the television companies will restrain themselves and will not again show films of that disaster. Every time that that happens we hear that it causes great distress to those who are left behind. We do not wish to provoke those feelings.
I do not know whether my constituency has more offshore workers than any other, but it certainly has a great many. Since I was elected the electorate in my constituency has increased from 56,000 to 80,000 in eight and a half years. That is almost entirely due to the oil-related expansion of the economy in north-east Scotland. Clearly a large number of the people who live in the constituency and who have moved there are offshore workers engaged in the offshore oil and gas industry.
It has become apparent in the industry in the past 10 years that it has moved from its infancy almost into middle


age. A great many things have been learnt in that time, but a great many problems have been discovered which were not apparent in the early days and are now much more in the minds of people working in the industry. One practical fact is that many installations operating in the North sea have been there for a long time, which means that they have been subjected to a great deal of wear and tear and weathering. The problems of maintenance and consequential implications for safety are a matter of great concern. One hears some quite alarming stories on occasions about what companies may have to do to ensure the life of those platforms is maintained for the productive life of the oil and gas field on which they are located. One thing that has become apparent—the reason why I support the basis principle of the safety case approach—is that one has to create a climate of safety in both the design and operation of facilities which are used offshore. The safety case approach puts pressure on operators to consider every aspect of their designs and their operating facilities. It means that they must accept full responsibility for the techniques and procedures which are followed.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) reasonably said that he was not sure about that approach, although he said that he was not against it. He felt there was a great need for regulation, but the regulations in the Norwegian sector of the North sea have not always prevented accidents. People sometimes believe that such regulations automatically provide for safe operation. In a sense, that lowers their threshold of responsibility. There is room for both approaches, but I believe that the safety case approach is worth pursuing.
A number of incidents have been brought to my attention that suggest that the climate of safety in the North sea is a long way short of what we would want. It has deteriorated, partly because of the age of the industry and partly because of the consequences of the oil price collapse of about six years ago. Practices changed as a result of that collapse arid that undermined morale and confidence among the oil companies and, much more important, among the suppliers, contractors and people involved in that side of the industry.
In an earlier intervention to the Secretary of State I raised the case of Mr. Colin Jewell, which has received publicity. He is a design engineer whose work relates to the North sea. He believes that nothing is done to consider the design of platforms from the outset and the safety implications of that. He was a member of a design team and he saw that there were immediate design problems with the work. One hundred engineers were involved in that design work and Mr. Jewell felt that none of them, if they were at all competent, could have failed to notice the inherent design faults in that work.
When Mr. Jewell attempted to draw attention to those faults, he was basically told, "We are paid to give the management the drawings that they want, not to question whether they will work."' He raised the issue with the Health and Safety Executive in advance of the explosion on Fulmar Alpha, which confirmed the design fault that he had exposed and which had been built into other platforms in the process of design.
The HSE investigated Mr. Jewell's complaint, as he had failed to get it resolved internally, and upheld his findings. However, it was unable to do anything when he found himself effectively blacklisted from working in the North sea because of what he had done.
One of Mr. Jewell's proposals is that North sea design engineers should be subject to an independent code of practice, which makes them legally responsible for promoting good and safe design, and that they should not simply fulfil their contract to a company for which they work.
Reference has been made to the fact that there has been a development towards relatively short-term contracting whereby people are taken on to do a specific contract for a matter of weeks or months. Therefore, one does not need to blacklist a person; one simply does not renew his contract when it expires. One also lets it be known to others in the industry that he is not a desirable character to have on board because he is inclined to rock the boat or expose problems within the system. We must find a way in which to provide adequate protection as well as ensuring that people can be held responsible for their actions.
I must tell the Minister that what I am saying is not new—such cases have been reported extensively outside the Chamber. That is exactly the problem, because other people see what happens to those who complain. Consequently they keep their heads down and they do not complain. For that reason, the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) was able to ask whether such cases were widespread or odd examples. In one sense we will never know. One is led to believe that such problems are widespread, but most people are unwilling to put their heads on the chopping block. Who can blame them, especially given the current serious recession which means that alternative employment to that offered by the offshore industry is not as readily available as it was in the past?
The market climate and the skills shortages in the North sea are also important factors because they may enable companies to operate draconian regimes in terms of intimidating people who blow the gaff on matters of safety.
I do not accept that there is a conspiracy. Nobody is deliberately trying to suppress safety in terms of operation or design. It is in nobody's interest to do that. I accept that a major accident offshore is a disaster for management, shareholders, the work force and everyone else. However, if the climate and culture are not right, mistakes occur and the consequences can be catastrophic. I hope that the Bill will address the problems, but we are moving slowly. We have a long way to go before we establish a climate of safety in design operation in the North sea that will make us believe that major disasters will not happen again.
I regret to say that, in the past three or four years, we have had a series of incidents offshore that suggest that the problem is getting worse. In every case the problem seems to be one of a basic fault in design or in safety procedure, which is avoidable, but has not been avoided. I hope that the Minister will accept that we have not got anything like the safety regime established in the North sea that we need and to which we should reasonably and properly aspire.
It has been suggested to me that the Piper Bravo platform, which is not even in place yet, has design faults. I am not sure how such things can be properly confirmed or investigated. Some people argue that we do not seem to learn from mistakes.
The hon. Members for Waveney and for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) referred to helicopter operations and their safety. I am not sure, but I suspect that that is outside the scope of the Bill, because responsibility for helicopters rests with the Department of Transport. However, I hope that I will not be ruled out of order when I say that the problems of British International


Helicopters, whose operational headquarters are in my constituency at Aberdeen airport, is a matter for considerable concern. Inevitably that must have some potential implications for safety. I have been immensely impressed at the determination, fortitude and calmness of the pilots of those helicopters who operate a taxi service to and from the rigs and platforms in the North sea.
I am sure that, like me, other hon. Members have received letters from those pilots expressing concern about their futures. We must consider what is going on in the mind of a pilot aged either 51 or 52 who knows that he will be retiring in three years but does not know whether he will have any pension to retire on. It is a matter of urgency that that matter should be resolved, so that the future of the company can be resolved and so that the operating climate for its helicopters can be clarified. It is not in anyone's interests that that situation should continue for much longer. I hope that the Government will continue to use every measure at their disposal to bring the matter to a speedy conclusion. It is an awful mess.
Against that background it is important to consider the proposal for an offshore safety trust which I have put forward on a number of occasions, including when my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and I met the Minister. I am not convinced that the HSE can, as proposed in the Bill, meet all the safety considerations and provide the absolute safety valve for the people who need it. I am not sure that it can ensure that those people's complaints are addressed in confidence, that what can be learnt from those complaints is thoroughly investigated and that we can all benefit.
I have already quoted the example of one offshore worker who suffered as a result of taking his case to the HSE and who has now effectively lost employment in the North sea. The proposed oil industry safety trust parallels an established practice within the civil aviation industry which has been extremely beneficial. It has encouraged people to be honest and they have acknowledged that some practices were inherently unsafe and that something should be done about that. They have also acknowledged that they have experienced design faults and that they should be corrected. People are positively encouraged to go to an outfit in which they can have confidence.
Enough examples have already been given—the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to some—of people who have gone to the HSE and found that by maintaining their anonymity they effectively cannot get their cases followed up. Only by revealing their identities can such people get cases followed up, and the consequence of that is that they are blacklisted and cannot get employment. We must get out of this vicious circle if we are to advance the safety of operations in the North sea.
The Bill is useful and builds on the findings of the Cullen inquiry. It is important, without in any way detracting from the value and qualities of the Cullen report, to recognise that, although it was a comprehensive inquiry into the consequences of one disaster, it did not cover every aspect of all operations and designs in the North sea. It would be dangerous for the Government to regard the Cullen report as the definitive blueprint for all safety operations in the North sea. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that that is not the case and that, valuable as Cullen is, there must be a much wider

continuous review of safety operations in the North sea, and a willingness to bring forward whatever legislation is necessary to create a climate that will restore confidence in the safety operations in the North sea. That confidence has been shattered and all the evidence that many of us have from constituents working in the offshore industry shows that it has not been restored. Welcome though the Bill is, in itself it will not restore that confidence.

6 pm

Mr. Den Dover: I reinforce what the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said. The Bill is not a magic answer to the safety problems in the North sea.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the operation of helicopters. It is incumbent on us to ensure, with this move towards the Health and Safety Executive covering safety, that it will look at all aspects and not just at North sea offshore oil installations. That should include the standby vessels, about which there have been complaints this evening. Can we ensure that safety is looked at across the board? The "Herald of Free Enterprise" disaster taught us lessons and there are now better requirements for life jackets, for the regular testing of life rafts and the provision of them. I hope that the HSE will look at the transport implications as well, including back-up vessels, because safety is important across the board.
I am delighted that support for the Bill goes across the Floor of the House, although there is disagreement on one measure—the employment of safety representatives. I think that Opposition Members would like to see that always done through trade unions.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: No.

Mr. Dover: Well perhaps sometimes.
In 1989, Ministers made a commitment, which was endorsed by Lord Cullen, to review the operation of the 1989 regulations governing the appointment of offshore safety representatives. When the transfer of these responsibilities takes place, it will be up to the Health and Safety Commission to oversee the review and to decide whether to propose any changes to safety regulations. The commission considers that the review should be informed by an in-depth factual study of the practical workings of the regulations. The study will be commissioned shortly from an independent research organisation and is likely to last around nine months. We cannot dive in quickly and bring in a method of appointing safety representatives that applies onshore when that study must first be undertaken.
A major factor that must be taken into account is that there is limited trade union representation in the North sea industries. There is sometimes limited union recognition, which I deplore. I like to see trade unions in operation at the workplace, making sure that the working conditions and in particular the safety conditions for their members are of the highest standards. However, there are many subcontractors and myriad firms operating out there who do not have any trade unions to represent their work force. Therefore, we should be creating difficulties if we laid down that safety representatives had to come from, or be appointed through, trade unions.

Mr. Salmond: I note that the hon. Gentleman is sympathetic to trade union representation offshore. He will have seen the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Energy—obviously, a recommendation approved by Conservative Members—that the


Government should clarify by what mechanism offshore workers can have ballots on trade union recognition. Will he add his voice to that call from the Select Committee?

Mr. Dover: I certainly add my voice to it. As a civil engineer for 20-odd years in the construction industry, admittedly mainly onshore, but often on rigs, I approve of trade union activities in all sectors, provided that they are constructive. It has been said in the debate that people cut corners on safety in order to cut costs, but in all my decades of experience, I have always found that the safest way is the cheapest way. It is of fundamental importance that safety matters are tackled in a workmanlike way, and the best way to do that is to have line managers who work hand-in-glove with the trade union representatives.
However, with the move to the HSE being responsible for these features in the North sea, I should like to add one proviso. Sometimes health and safety inspectors on building sites are not reasonable. They are academic and sometimes do not have much practical experience, but still lay down specific rules. I can give an example of this, although it is not connected with the North sea. Last week, a few miles outside my constituency, some cables had to be unearthed. The inspector accepted that everything had been done properly, but insisted that two steel spikes were put on each side of the high-voltage cable. That was a recipe for disaster. The third or fourth spike went through the cable and cut off the power supply for about a quarter of the town of Bolton. That shows how inspectors can sometimes be a hindrance rather than a help. I hope that they will play their part constructively in the North sea, which is such an unsafe working environment.
I have some reservations about clause 5, which says:
The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every direction given… unless he is of the opinion that disclosure of the direction is against the interests of national security or the commercial interests of any person.
I should like to see the earliest possible laying down of directions if they are needed. We do not want the delay inherent in laying orders before both Houses of Parliament. That may take a month or two, when action should be taken at the workplace.
I am delighted to give my full backing to the Bill. I am a great one for preventing accidents and I am glad that the Government have endorsed all the recommendations of the Cullen report. I compliment the commission, which has done a marvellous job to ensure that safety in the North sea will improve all the time. I am pleased that we have made great progress since that most unfortunate accident.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) said that he had considerable sympathy for trade union recognition in the workplace. For many trade unionists offshore, the objective is to obtain the same agreements with management that are enjoyed by their colleagues ashore. If employees in refineries can be taken into the trust of management and work on safety committees, the same should hold on the offshore platforms. BP, for example, has already recognised that there should be equality of treatment. Unfortunately, that does not hold for the whole of the offshore gas and oil industry, and that is a matter for considerable regret. I share the hon. Gentleman's opinion on that.
Is the Minister satisfied that the provisions in the Bill are wholly compatible with the relevant articles of the draft directive on the protection of workers in extractive industries? I refer to Com (91) of 493 final. I believe that I am right in saying that an amended version of that draft directive was sent to the Council on 13 January—I refer to Council document 4126/92. I believe that I am correct in saying that that has still to be considered by the Select Committee on European Legislation. I have been informed that the Department of Employment has still to provide the Select Committee with an explanatory memorandum on the directive. As the Minister is not disputing what I am saying, I take it that the Bill is wholly compatible with the provisions that are contained in the draft directive. Perhaps the Minister will respond to my question when he replies.
The Commission's amended draft states that the new proposal, which takes account of the European Parliament's report on the draft, has been amended to reflect the Piper Alpha disaster and Lord Cullen's excellent report, and especially the recommendations contained therein.
In terms of matching the Bill with the draft directive, the Commission appears to be of the view vis-a-vis the directive that maximum discretion, in line with the doctrine of subsidiarity, should be left to the member state when enacting legislation on safety in extractive industries, expecially the offshore industry. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government intend to abide by the concept of subsidiarity when it comes to enacting the Bill.
Some of my constituents have complained bitterly about the cost of obtaining an offshore safety certificate. If the costs of travelling to Aberdeen and lodgings are taken into account, about £500 has to be found by those who are anxious to obtain a certificate. Many of the men in my constituency who are in that position are unemployed, but they still have to find the money. Why cannot the local enterprise companies or the Department meet the cost of this essential training certificate? It seems that the LECs or the Department could provide much more assistance.
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State confirm that the provisions of clause I are designed to protect both divers and the crews of standby vessels. Last week I asked the Minister for Shipping about custom-built standby vessels. Everyone taking part in the debate knows that the fleet of standby vessels is an ageing one. There are still far too many side trawlers working in the North sea. For understandable reasons, the side trawlers are known on Humberside and elsewhere as side winders. These vessels are too old. I accept that they have been converted, but some of them were built in the 1950s and 1960s.
Two Departments are involved with standby vessels. First, there is the Department of Employment, which is responsible for the Bill, but the Department of Transport, too, has a deep involvement. I am concerned that some laudable objectives might not be realised because two Departments are involved. I would prefer the operations of standby vessels to come wholly within the remit of the Health and Safety Executive.
Last week, I asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the vessels were custom built. He replied:
The number of vessels certificated for the first time for use in the United Kingdom standby industry in the past three years were eight vessels in 1989, 24 in 1990 and 30 in 1991. Of these vessels the vast majority, some 61 vessels, were converted for the purpose. Only one was purpose built as a standby vessel and this may not have been directly for the


United Kingdom industry, but may have previously served as a standby vessel in Norway or elsewhere. No custom-built vessels were constructed in United Kingdom shipyards".— [Official Report, 3 February 1992; Vol. 203, c. 39.]
That matter causes me deep regret. We have specialist shipyards that can easily produce such vessels, and they are required by the industry. There is a fleet of 200 and I think that I am right in saying that this year about 70 of the older vessels will have to be laid off or scrapped. In fact, some of them were already tied to the quay. Their scrapping will not be before time, and I am sure that the House is aware that Lord Cullen was deeply critical of this fleet of vessels, and particularly of the Silver Pit. He praised the remarkable bravery of the crew of that vessel, but took the view that it should not have been crewing such an inappropriate vessel. In other words, that old side trawler should not have been operating as a standby vessel. Lord Cullen said:
I strongly urge that the standard of the existing SBV fleet"—
that is the standby vessel fleet—
is improved with despatch, although it is obvious that this cannot be done at once.
I know that progress is being made, but there are still major problems with the standby fleet. If the Secretary of State is correct in saying that the standby crews and their vessels come within the ambit of clause 1,I think that I am in order in concentrating my brief remarks on these vessels.
Recommendations 88 and 90 of the Cullen report are, in effect, demands for changes in the regulations and are aimed at improving the quality of standby vessels. That is how it should be. To be fair, some standby vessel operators have sought to make improvements to their vessels. They have made every effort to meet the new regulations. Speaking as a former shipwright, I accept that many of their vessels are of an acceptable standard. I am told, however, that at a ceremony in Aberdeen for the renaming of the standby vessel Cam Viking, the managing director of Cam Shipping, Mr. Bruce Claridge, complained about companies that were getting away with chartering vessels that did not meet the requirements of the new regulations. If what Mr. Claridge said is accurate, it is a matter of considerable concern.
The Minister may say that that is a matter not for his Department but for the Department of Transport. If that is so, I urge him to bring my remarks to the notice of his ministerial colleagues. Mr. Claridge has made a serious complaint in the light of what happened to the poor souls on Piper Alpha and to the poor and remarkably brave souls on the Silver Pit. If the accusation has merit, as I believe it has, it should be investigated.
It has also been brought to my attention that the oil and gas companies are imposing low charter rates on the standby vessel operators. Those rates are putting severe cost restraints on the operation of standby vessels. That is the view of the offshore industry liaison committee and it was also the view expressed in the Aberdeen petroleum report of 5 February. It said that the standby vessel operator Farstad UK's new deal on terms and conditions for crews meant that they would suffer a reduction in their wages. Having spent many thousands of pounds in bringing its vessels up to and beyond the requirements of

the new regulations, the company had to reduce costs because of the low charter rates being imposed by the client companies.
That is a serious allegation, not against the standby vessel operator but against the offshore oil and gas companies. If they are inflicting low charter rates on standby vessels, and if that results in a diminution in the terms and conditions of employment, how on earth can we expect those crews to show loyalty to their employers or to be motivated as they go about their difficult work? Cutting wages in that way, even in such a deep recession, will lead to a high turnover in the crews of standby vessels. It may also lead to companies cutting their training programmes for the crews.
I have never forgotten the time when, 12 or 13 years ago, a standby vessel lost a man overboard. The vessel was so poorly equipped that the fatal accident inquiry in Aberdeen was told that it took the crew 30 minutes to get the man back on board. Everyone in Aberdeen knows about that scandalous case. The man was the mate on that vessel, but even his own crew could not rescue him. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) can confirm that he died of hypothermia.
Farstad UK acknowledges that, because of the low rates being imposed on standby vessel operators, costs have to be reduced. Farstad's deputy managing director, Captain Peter Maudsley, is reported as having said:
Keeping crews of our standby vessels on the same terms and conditions as the rest of our fleet proved impossible.
It is a deeply disturbing position. Cutting wages diminishes both motivation and loyalty and it increases labour turnover. The standby vessels and their crews should be seen as integral elements of the productive activities offshore. If that means the Department of Transport giving up some of its responsibilities to the HSE, so be it.
Many standby vessels will have to leave the fleet before the end of the year, and in a way that will be a blessing. We need a highly efficient fleet that meets the recommendations laid down by Lord Cullen, the first of which—recommendation 89—was that there must be a high degree of manoeuvrability. Side trawlers, even with bow thrusters installed, do not meet that requirement. The safety case approach should include standby vessels.
I welcome the Bill, but with some reservations. It seeks to enhance safety offshore and to punish those who place their employees in danger. One reservation is that the Bill fails to deal with the genuine and legitimate fear of victimisation, which is being experienced by many people offshore. Time and again, people at my surgeries say to me, "I dare not speak up because I will lose my job and if I come back to Inverclyde I will never get a job in this area." That fear must be acknowledged and measures must be generated to deal with that. Men must have not only confidence in their employers but pride in their work.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that it is within the knowledge of some hon. Members that a tragic explosion has taken place in the dock at Grangemouth. Up to eight people are missing and others have severe burns. I think that the Scottish Office industry Minister is aware of the incident. I wonder whether it would be appropriate for the Government to make a statement at some stage this evening, at the Government's choosing.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The Treasury Bench has heard what the hon. Gentleman said.


I cannot take the matter any further at this stage, other than to say that no request has been received, as yet, for a statement to he made.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Earlier, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) appealed to the press to use some discretion in its coverage of tonight's debate on the ground that scenes from the Piper Alpha incident inevitably would be harrowing for the relatives of those involved. That is true, and many of my constituents are in that position. However, it is most important that there is coverage of tonight's debate because the most pressing danger is that of complacency creeping into both the activities of the offshore industry and our proceedings tonight. It is not without significance that throughout the debate there have never been more than half a dozen hon. Members on either side of the House.
As was said earlier, since the Piper Alpha incident there has been a succession of serious incidents in the North sea, although obviously not on the same scale as Piper Alpha. Nevertheless, they have been potentially major incidents. The statistics for "dangerous occurrences" show that they have been increasing during the past few years—so there is no ground for complacency.
An industry that deals with petroleum products tends, by its nature, to be inherently dangerous. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, news is coming through about a serious incident in Grangemouth tonight. I join with the hon. Gentleman in saying that we would appreciate a statement to Scottish Members at some point. The North sea industry is also inherently dangerous and there can be no complacency in the safety regime that we are imposing upon it.
There is a danger that. three and a half years after the Piper Alpha tragedy, some of the scenes—although etched on the memory—are fading from front-line political significance. If we judge the commitment to offshore safety by the amount of money that is spent on it, it would be a strong indictment of the level of concern of this House and of the Government. During the 1980s, only a tiny fraction of 1 per cent. of Government revenue from the North sea was spent on implementing and enforcing the safety regime in the North sea. Even on the increased expenditure levels expected by 1994–95, it is probable that only 1 per cent. of Government revenue will be expended on enforcing the new, beefed-up safety regime in the North sea. If we project that against total revenues expected in that year, it amounts to about one single day of revenue being allocated to the budget to implement the safety regime in the North sea.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for interrupting his speech. I refer to the serious incident in my constituency. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for raising with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the question whether a Government statement can be made later tonight. I have been in contact with the authorities, and particularly with the police in my constituency, who have been as helpful as they can in all the circumstances. Obviously, the emergency services are run off their feet. I hope that it will be possible—though I shall understand if it is not—for a Minister to come to the

House to say something about that major incident, which involved the jetty at Grangemouth, which is part of the dock and BP complex.

Madam Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a point of order on that matter a few moments ago—but as the hon. Member for Falkirk, East represents the constituency concerned, it is understandable that he wants to raise it again, and in a most helpful manner. I repeat that, at this stage, Mr. Speaker's Office has not been informed that a Minister wants to make a statement. One may come later—we must wait and see.

Mr. Salmond: A number of right hon. and hon. Members' constituencies include major petroleum production facilities, so I am sure that we all share the concern and anxiety felt by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing). A statement would be appreciated by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.
I was making the point that if we judge concern for safety by the money spent on it, then by any measurement or definition, it is a sad indictment of the official concern expressed in the 1980s. A mere fraction of North sea revenues is to be spent on enforcing the safety regime.
When the Select Committee on Energy took evidence, many oil companies said that a huge amount is currently being expended on safety. The Committee was given a figure for new safety expenditure arising from the Cullen report of £850 million, perhaps rising even to £5,000 million over the next 10 to 15 years.
Later evidence established that 70 to 80 per cent. of that expenditure will come from the Exchequer through offsets against petroleum revenue taxation. We are talking not about an industry in decline—no matter what some right hon. and hon. Members may think—but about one in which oil and gas production will rise from more than 2 million barrels a day now to a new peak of almost 3 million barrels a day by the end of the century.
There will be many more production platforms established as smaller accumulations are identified and exploited in the North sea. Because of that, the cost of supervising and enforcing even the new goal-related safety regime will be higher. I am not convinced that, even on the projected budget for the mid-1990s, the budgetary emphasis on safety can yet be considered adequate.
The Bill's provisions are not controversial. It has widespread support in the House as far as it goes, but missing is legislation to protect against victimisation. With respect to the Secretary of State, I believe that most right hon. and hon. Members found very unconvincing his explanation as to why such a provision could not form part of the Bill.
That goes hand-in-hand with the case made for trade union involvement in oil and gas industry activities. Lord Cullen believed that his remit did not allow him to move too far into the question of labour relations, and said so in paragraph 21.83 of his report. However, even given that restriction, the report gave more than a nod and a wink in the direction of the collective security that trade unions could provide if they nominated members of safety committees.
As a member of the Select Committee, I was extremely concerned when Mr. Rimington, Director General of the Health and Safety Executive, revealed in his evidence that he had not been aware of the restrictions that Lord Cullen


felt had been placed upon him in respect of investigating labour relations. Lord Cullen's point that trade union involvement gives an enhanced feeling of collective security to offshore employees is one that should be widely recognised.
I am not necessarily holding any brief for some of the activities of certain unions with members working in the North sea. My own view is that, with one honourable exception in the Manufacturing Science Finance union, most of the unions involved in the North sea have not always represented their members effectively, and part of the present response made by the offshore industry liaison committee on moving to trade union status is a reaction to that situation.
None the less, all Select Committee members felt some frustration in trying to identify which procedures would allow offshore workers to apply for trade union recognition, and enforce the general wish for union recognition upon employers. We have received no convincing answers either from UKOOA or the Government as to the procedure that needs to be observed to ensure that offshore workers not only enjoy the right to be trade union members but can have their trade unions recognised by their employers.
In conjunction with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), as a member of the Select Committee, I visited a BP platform. The company extended good facilities to speak to its employees and to members of the platform's safety committee in private. A number of issues arose that emphasised the difficulties that safety committees encounter because of the absence of trade union representation.
It should be said that the platform in question was a good, functioning platform, and the safety committee was in general happy with its work and remit, and with the employer's response. However, the committee pointed out that in the absence of trade union involvement, it often found itself faced with broader issues of terms and conditions. The committee was becoming caught up in issues that did not fall within its remit. That is another argument for the clarification of how offshore workers should go about securing trade union rights and recognition.

Dr. Godman: The confusion to which the hon. Gentleman refers does not exist at any of the BP refineries that I have visited.

Mr. Salmond: Yes, I am sure that is so. The Select Committee made the point that, if onshore workers have certain rights, offshore workers should, all the more so, enjoy the same rights. No convincing reason has been given for treating onshore and offshore workers differently—often by the same company.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. Member aware that the companies argue that responsibility lies not with them but with their contractors? We pointed out to the companies that they let the contracts, and could therefore require trade union representation as a condition of awarding them.

Mr. Salmond: I agree. It is similarly unconvincing for UKOOA to say that it is not within its remit to consider trade union or labour relations when the Select Committee

was presented with a previous UKOOA agreement and understanding dating from the 1970s, which dealt with exactly these points. Unfortunately, it was never implemented.
As to discrimination, we are not necessarily talking about someone being fired, sacked, or NRB'd. There are many more subtler forms of exerting pressure and discrimination. An employee might believe that his promotion prospects hung on the extent of his activity in pushing for trade union recognition or safety provision.
An offshore worker has presented me with a detailed file containing his experiences as a safety representative. I shall not mention his name, for obvious reasons, but his case is now being considered by the HSE. As is well documented in the case evidence, that worker was not suddenly sacked but was transferred to another platform without reasonable cause. When unhappy circumstances befell him, he was treated differently from other employees in the same circumstances. He believes that the subtle discrimination practised on him resulted from his active role in a North sea safety committee.
Whatever Conservative Members may believe, I can assure them that there is a climate of fear among offshore workers who believe—rightly or wrongly, but I think rightly—that many employees are subject to discrimination because companies or contractors consider that they have placed too much emphasis on safety matters.
Another notable example relates specifically to some of the points made in the case study to which I have just referred. When Shell and UKOOA—representingall the major companies—appeared before the Select Committee, they were astonished that anyone should suggest that they, as operators of various North sea fields, could not be approached by any employee, regardless of whether that person was employed directly by a company or employed by a contractor.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has pointed out, about a quarter of offshore workers are employed by the major companies, while the remaining three quarters work for contractors. It is clear, however, that in this case the contracting company felt extremely nervous when it found that representatives of a safety committee had gone straight from the employer to the ultimate operator in the field. Its anxiety and the pressure that was placed on the safety committee representatives speak volumes: they reveal that not everyone is treated equally in the North sea, and that, on some North sea installations, there is still a marked divergence between the recourse available to those working for the operator and that accorded to those working for contracting companies.
My final point relates to the penalties that will be employed when North sea workers are eventually given some sort of legislative protection against victimisation. When I asked earlier what those penalties might be, I was fobbed off with the answer that the matter would be referred to the industrial tribunal, and that the worker involved might receive some form of compensation.
Perhaps, if Ministers are preparing legislation, they will take note of my view. I believe that, if it is established through a proper investigation that a company has been victimising workers for reporting safety concerns, that company—whether it is a contractor or an operator—must be in exactly the same position as an employee who has jeopardised the safety of a platform. Given that such


an employee would face dismissal if that were proven, a company should face no less than severe curtailment of its operations across the North sea.
Unless we, as legislators, are prepared to treat such circumstances with that degree of seriousness, rather than allowing fines even in the low thousands to be imposed, we are unlikely to secure the safety culture to which North sea workers are, sadly, not accustomed but are certainly entitled.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I wish to make three points. First, I believe that I speak for a number of my hon. Friends when I say that we want the Bill to reach the statute book, come what may, in view of the approaching general election, and I hope that it will be given a fair wind. If it is thought that the politicians have dithered in any way, we shall be slaughtered on the anvil of public opinion and informed opinion in the oil industry. People will ask, "Are they more concerned with their politics than with recommendations that must be implemented as a matter of urgency?"

Mr. Robert Hughes: I hope that my hon. Friend will dispel any notion that the Secretary of State may have sought to introduce to the effect that the passage of the Bill would be seriously delayed if we examined the important question of victimisation. The Bill could, with our support, be amended speedily, and we certainly will not hold it up in any circumstances.

Mr. Dalyell: That brings me to the second issue that I wish to discuss—the question of anonymity, which the Secretary of State mentioned several times in his opening speech.
According to my experience—and, I believe, that of my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—there is no such thing as anonymity. We find, in our day-to-day constituency work, that if we complain we are asked—quite understandably—to produce more facts: we are asked for the basis of the complaint. If we give the basis of the complaint, however, it is very easy for employers to look down the list and find out which employee comes from Linlithgow, Greenock and Port Glasgow, Aberdeen, North or Banff and Buchan. It is not difficult to put two and two together.
I do not say that people "have it taken out of them" for making a complaint at the time when that complaint is made, but there may be a problem the next time something happens. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan mentioned promotion, for instance. All these things enter into such considerations, and the proverbial black mark may be recorded. It is very difficult to pursue an issue when it is impossible to produce a detailed case. Ministers should take on board this message from those of us who speak for people with whom we come into contact in our day-to-day work: something must be done about victimisation, and it must be done quickly. It cannot be postponed.
I cannot stand here and say, "You will not get your Bill through unless you do something about victimisation." That would be a very empty threat. I believe, however, that when it is felt almost unanimously in the House of

Commons that something should be done—on a "no-line Whip"—Governments have at least a moral obligation to answer questions properly.
My final question is rather more specific. It relates to recommendation 57 of the Cullen report. Let me yet again express the view that Lord Cullen and his staff have produced a document of world-class significance—in, given the circumstances, a remarkably short time. In view of the time that other reports have taken to produce—I attended day 167 of the Layfield committee inquiry on Sizewell recently—it is enormously to Lord Cullen's credit that he has produced such a detailed and worthwhile document so quickly.
Paragraph 57 says:
For the purpose of maintaining breathable air within the accommodation, it should be required by regulation that the ventilation air intakes should be provided with smoke and gas detectors and that on smoke or gas alarm the ventilation and dampers should be shut down".
That refers to paragraphs 19.171 and 19.172. Paragraph 19.171 states:
The need for an integrated approach is illustrated by the ventilation system. It is clearly essential that smoke should not be sucked into the accommodation through the ventilation intakes. On the other hand, positive pressure maintained by the ventilation system allows the use of air locks to prevent smoke entering through main entrance and evacuation doors. The power supply for the ventilation system introduces another factor, since it is essential that emergency power to other functions in the accommodation should not be jeopardised. In short, the ventilation system needs to be thought through to minimise the chance either of its being ineffective or defeated or of its actually making things worse.
Paragraph 19.172 states:
There is, however, one specific measure which I am satisfied I should support. The air intakes of the ventilation system should be provided with hydrocarbon gas and smoke detectors and on alarm the ventilation and dampers should shut down. I note that the draft fourth edition of the guidance notes to the Construction and Survey Regulations contains provisions on this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) and other colleagues know what it is to which I refer. It arises from constituency surgeries. Very considerable concern has been expressed about the ventilation systems, not least in relation to the lavatories on some of the platforms.
I do not intend to go into too much detail. The Department knows the precise field to which I refer. I shall tell the Minister afterwards. I hope that he will be able to say that great attention is now being given to Lord Cullen's concerns about the ventilation systems.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: This debate, which essentially arises out of the Piper Alpha disaster, has been given even greater poignancy due to the reports that we have received of a major explosion at Grangemouth. Points of order have been raised, asking for a statement tonight. The Opposition appreciate, however, that it may be premature for the issue to be raised in Parliament tonight while there is uncertainty. However, may I ask the Minister to take on board the fact that it would be appropriate for a statement to be made to the House tomorrow.
The debate is important and has led to keen observations being made on both sides of the House. I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said: the Opposition have absolutely no


intention of trying to block the Bill. It is an important Bill even if, as it stands, we believe that it needs to be improved. It is also important because it arises out of the death of 167 people in 1988 after the Piper Alpha explosion. It is important, too, because it arises out of Lord Cullen's report which focused on other accidents in the oil industry, and elsewhere, as well as on the Piper Alpha accident.
The Cullen report is widely recognised as one of the most excellent reports that has ever been produced on matters that affect industrial safety. The report is important because it makes it clear that where safety is not given priority by both management and the regulatory authorities—in this case the Department of Energy and the Government—things begin to go badly awry. The Minister said earlier today that he hoped it would be accepted that the Government had come to the House in good faith. However, we judge the Government's good faith in terms of their track record.
In many ways it has considerable weaknesses. I point to the fact that both the Department of Energy, in its failure to prioritise safety within the oil industry, and more generally the Government, supported by Conservative Members, in their consistent failure throughout the 1980s to provide a framework for safety, contributed to a number of major disasters. Piper Alpha is significant tonight, but the Herald of Free Enterprise and the King's Cross disasters can be attributed, to a considerable extent, to the Government's failure to give priority to safety. Faced with the pressure resulting from those disasters, we know that the Government have begun to try to undo some of the damage. However, the rising level of deaths and serious injuries in industry generally is a matter of great shame to us all, but it is a matter of great shame in particular for those who can be held to he responsible. There is an enormous cost in terms of both human tragedy and the economic implications, through days lost through sickness and ill health. The provision of an overall health and safety regime is considerably less today than it once was. That ought to concern us all.
I hope that the Minister is able to deny newspaper reports about the Government's attitude to safety. According to those reports, almost incredibly the Government are even now considering the privatisation of the electrical equipment certification service. That service did a considerable amount of work after the explosions on Piper Alpha. Since then, the service has been greatly involved in the certification of electrical motors on offshore oil and gas platforms in order to ensure that that area of danger is minimised. In the light of Government protestations that safety is of the highest order, the idea that that service should be privatised is brought into focus. Is the Minister in a position to confirm that the Government intend to privatise that important part of the health and safety regime? If it is true, I repeat that it does not square up with the Government's protestations about their concern for safety.
Safety in the oil industry in general is still far from perfect. I understand that during the past 12 months there have been three gas leaks, two in the southern sector and one in the northern sector. The leaks had great similarities with Piper Alpha. Thankfully, they did not lead to the same tragic results. We know that the Government still justify regulation dispensations for the oil industry. I refer

to a parliamentary answer that was given to me by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). I asked under what circumstances dispensations from the health and safety regulations were given by the Department to offshore oil companies. The Minister replied:
Each application is carefully considered and only granted subject to equivalent or higher alternative safety arrangements being in place."—[0fficial Report, 22 January 1992;Vol. 202, c. 266.]
North sea operators are given dispensations, not only when there are equivalent or higher alternative arrangements in place but in some cases when it is well known to the authorities that the platforms are operating at a level that would not be allowed if they were completely new platforms. I refer the Minister to the specific case of the Amoco Montrose platform—now, thankfully, closed—which was given dispensation for nine years although it was known that the accommodation facilities did not meet the fire regulation standards that apply to platforms. However, it had been built when the new fire regulations had been well trailed. We cannot accept seriously the argument that an overwhelming case can be made that the Government regard safety as a matter of the greatest priority.
The most important single factor in terms of the Cullen report and the Bill is, inevitably, the movement of responsibility for health and safety in the oil industry to the Health and Safety Executive. We welcome that. It is right and proper that there should be one regulatory agency. Furthermore, it finally resolves the conflict between the Department of Energy, as the producer Department, and the Department of Energy as the Department that is responsible for monitoring safety. I draw the attention of the House and of Ministers to the fact that in that context it seems to make no sense whatsoever that one regulatory authority responsible for safety—the maritime inspectorate—should still remain within the Department of Transport. I hope that the Ministers will seriously consider that the time has come to tidy up that particular aspect of health and safety.
One of the Cullen report's most important contributions to safety has been the development of the concept of a safety case. That is widely accepted by all those involved in health and safety both in Britain and throughout the world. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made an important point when he referred to the need for health and safety to be designed in from the beginning. It is quite obvious that in many cases health and safety cannot be bolted on, as an afterthought, to the basic design. That is why the concept of the safety case—a case going back to the very essentials of design—is so important.
I want to put a specific question to the Minister. It is clear that, in the development of the safety case regime, time is of the essence. I hope that that is accepted on both sides of the House. We recognise the complexity of the situation and the fact that there is a shortage of skills, so we make no criticism of the time that this process has taken. It is to be hoped that everything possible is being done to bring forward the safety regime as quickly as possible. It is likely that outside consultants will be employed by the Health and Safety Executive. If so, a conflict may well arise between the work of the consultants in their capacity as testers of design for the private operators and what they do for the HSE to determine whether the safety case is well established. It is not a


conflict which will lead inevitably to problems, but it should be recognised at an early stage and rectified by the Government.
The safety case regime in the North sea is based to a considerable extent on the CIMAH regulations—the major accident hazard regulations as applied to industry on land. At present, only 18 people in the Health and Safety Executive are working on those regulations, and even though the provisions have been in operation for about two and a half years, fewer than one third of the safety cases have been accepted as being proper working documents. We welcome the emphasis on safety in the North sea, but we expect a parallel prioritisation of the extremely dangerous potential accident sites onshore, and we expect to see an improvement in that situation.
In the Cullen report and in the House today we have witnessed an important debate about the role of safety representatives. It will come as no surprise to the Minister to hear that we have always taken the view that safety representatives are at their best when backed by a trade union, of whose resources and training they are able to take advantage. If I pursue this issue, the Minister will refer me, as the Secretary of State referred the Select Committee, to the current review of the safety representatives and of the safety committee regulations. While I accept that, I have to say that we expect those undertaking the review to have complete power to look into all areas and, specifically, to consider whether safety representatives who are not backed by a trade union are in a position to give the same kind of expert advice as would be expected from safety representatives appointed by a trade union. If the review is to command the support of all sides of industry it must be seen as being thorough and in-depth. Otherwise it will be flawed. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate when the whole review process is likely to be completed. It seems that matters have fallen behind schedule and need to be put back on the rails.
Many issues have been raised in this debate. Obviously victimisation is a very relevant matter, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) made a number of important points. I do not want to go over that ground again; suffice it to say that we accept the Secretary of State's assurance that the Government are making a genuine effort to find a mechanism to implement Lord Cullen's recommendation 30.
The Select Committee drew attention to the underreporting of accidents in the oil industry. Clearly, part of that under-reporting comes down to the fear of victimisation. Surely there can no longer be any argument about the fact that the RIDDOR regulations, which make compulsory the reporting of all serious onshore accidents, should be applied directly offshore or be paralleled by the introduction of equivalent offshore regulations. The House would welcome a statement that the Government intended to pursue that line.
Another important area in terms of safety in the offshore industry is the COSHH regulations, which all parties in this House claim is one of the great steps forward in health and safety provision in this country. Of course, the COSHH regulations do not apply offshore, and the Minister ought to consider whether it is time to provide such protection for those who work in the offshore industry.
We shall save for the Committee stage the debate about the level of penalties that are appropriate under the Bill. It

is important that we accept that the central thrust of the measure is about the offshore industry. The Bill arises very much out of the Piper Alpha incident. Many lives were lost in that incident, and we have an obligation to the 30,000-odd people working in the industry, as well as those who lost loved ones in the tragedy. We must provide a framework for an enduring safety regime for the offshore industry.
We intend to ensure that the Bill passes speedily. In no circumstances shall we frustrate its progress. On that basis I hope that we can look to the Government to ensure that recommendation 30 of the Cullen report is implemented simultaneously. That is a matter of great importance. If we can have such an assurance we shall be able, for once, to say that the Bill has bipartisan support.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): This has been a serious and well-informed debate, arising, as many hon. Members have said, from one of the most serious and tragic accidents that we have experienced in our generation. Hon. Members on both sides, particularly those whose constituents were most directly affected, have made valuble contributions to the debate. Indeed, we have seen the House at its best.
With regard to the incident at Grangemouth, to which two or three hon. Members have referred, I should say that we are receiving information almost by the minute. Indeed, the situation changes every time we receive further word. The location and seriousness of the incident are still in some doubt. I am sure that one of my ministerial colleagues will want to inform the House tomorrow. Health and Safety Executive inspectors are already on their way to the scene. I hope that Opposition Members accept that were we to attempt a rushed account this evening it would of necessity be incomplete. I am sure that hon. Members would prefer to hear a more considered account tomorrow. It is such an account that my colleagues would prefer to give. I hope that that is acceptable to all hon. Members.
In the time available to me I shall answer as many as possible of the points that have been raised. If I should miss any, I shall write to the hon. Members concerned as soon as possible—if possible, before the commencement of the Committee stage so that any information that I can give may be used in Committee.
At a very early stage the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) raised the question of resources. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the offshore safety division is a separate, discrete, independent division of the Health and Safety Executive. All the posts in it are additional. There have been some temporary secondments to ensure that the division is staffed as effectively as possible and that the experience available is as approprite as may be. However, the officers are all additional. To date, 84 are in post, and 51 offers of posts have been made. So we are well on the way to achieving the recruitment targets that have been set with a view to making the decision as effective as possible.
Clause 5 was commented on by the hon. Member for Sedgefield and by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter). I wish to make it clear that it is a safety net clause which follows on similar provisions made for the telecommunications, electricity and water industries. Experience has taught us that it has not been


necessary to invoke the similar or parallel provisions made for those industries. It is not envisaged that we would have to use them for the offshore industry, but the provisions provide a safety net.
We see no conflict between security and safety. The hon. Member for Sedgefield questioned the commercially sensitive nature of the provision. There will be no compromise between safety and commercial motivation, but occasionally the divulging of information might be commercially damaging to the business involved. I do not think that anyone would believe that that was either necessary or sensible. Therefore, there is no conflict between commercial viability or motivation and safety, but we believe that the security of the installations and of those who work in them should be a legitimate purpose of the Bill and the provisions in clause 5. I hope that all hon. Members will accept that that is the motivation behind the clause; it is a last resort provision which we hope will not be required.
I shall try to allay hon. Members' understandable anxieties about the subject of victimisation. I shall not mention each one individually, but almost all contributors to the debate have touched on the issue and made no secret of their concern. Indeed, they made the extent of their anxiety explicitly clear. I regret that there was some suspicion in the minds of Opposition Members.
It is important to make it clear that, within the existing regime, if a safety representative has been victimised to the point of being unable to carry out his functions as a safety representative, the installation operator and owner would be in breach of the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989. In that case, enforcement action could be taken under that provision.
If safety standards are threatened by the alleged or actual act of victimisation, offshore safety division inspectors have the powers, under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, to issue improvement and prohibition notices. They have further powers, under the Mineral Workings Acts, to require improvements to be made or an activity to be stopped. In that sense, powers exist to cover that issue.

Mr. Dalyell: How often have those powers been used?

Mr. Forth: From memory, I believe that six incidents have been reported in the past year. A number of investigations have been made by the Health and Safety Executive. As has been mentioned, one problem is that, when such cases have gone to tribunal, there has not been an overwhelming success—

Mr. Dalyell: Of course.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman says, "Of course". The hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) spent some time describing in detail cases with which they were familiar. As tribunals are totally independent of Government and are judicial organisations, they must have the power—and the House must respect that power—to investigate such matters and come to a conclusion. It is a bit unfair of Opposition Members to ask Ministers to make judgments on or second guess what tribunals do. That cannot be our role.

Mr. Salmond: The Minister is always making the case there there is no need for legislative change. I hope that he will veer away from that argument and say why legislative change is needed. If he were a safety representative on a platform and, without explanation, he were transferred to another platform run by the same operator or service company, how would an industrial tribunal or any other organisation be able to prove that the reason for his transfer was that he was making a nuisance of himself over safety matters? How does the Minister intend to deal with that?

Mr. Forth: That constraint would apply to almost any regime. The hon. Gentleman is unfair to claim that we have said that we shall not take action. My right hon. and learned Friend has said more than once, and I have repeated it, that it is the Government's avowed intention to deal with that subject. However, we want to take the right action, and to do so properly and comprehensively. Our view, and the advice given us, is that the Bill does not represent a suitable way to deal with that problem.
We share the desire of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to get the Bill on the statute book before any interruptions caused by imminent events. In order to do so, given the stage that the Bill has reached, it would be risky to start seeking to extend its scope or coverage, play with the long or short titles or introduce new sectors in the Bill, for whatever reason. Not only would there be great procedural difficulties in doing so, but there would be political difficulties. We want to guide the Bill through all its stages and for it to be properly scrutinised in Committee. With the help of Opposition Members, who have generously said that they will help, we hope to see the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. I do not want to do anything to jeopardise that process. Therefore, my right hon. and learned Friend has given an undertaking that we shall proceed with legislation as soon as it is reasonable to do so, but the Bill is not the appropriate way.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I took the opportunity in the interval between speaking and listening to the Minister's wind-up to consult "Erskine May" on the subject of changing Bills' titles. "Erskine May" states clearly that amendments may be made in Committee even if they are not within the Bill's scope according to the long title. Thereafter, once the Bill is amended, the long title may be changed, but only to take account of the amendments that have been made. Therefore, I believe that we can square the circle and there is no reason to say that, by widening the scope of the Bill's long title, it would open the issue so much that the Bill's progress to Report would be unnecessarily delayed.

Mr. Forth: I have not been in the House as long as the hon. Gentleman and I defer to his experience. In addition, I have not had the opportunity to read "Erskine May" during the debate, as I was listening attentively to contributors. However, what the hon. Gentleman says is a new one on me, if I may put it as basically as that. I have always been led to believe that we must pay due regard to a Bill's title. If what the hon. Gentleman has just said is true, surely it would mean that any Bill could be amended in almost any way in Committee, and one could subsequently play around with its title in order to accommodate the amendments. That does not accord with my experience, however brief, in the House or in Committee.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Forth: I do not want to get bogged down in that subject as I want to press on and try to answer questions asked.

Mr. Hughes: I hope that I did not give the impression that a Bill could be amended in any way at all as that is not so. It can be amended even in a way not covered under the Bill's title if the amendment is connected with the Bill's purpose. However, I think it is Standing Order No. 62(b) which states that a Committee can amend a Bill and change the long title for that purpose. If the Minister checks "Erskine May", which I can gladly provide for him, I believe that we can reach common ground on this if there is the will to do so.

Mr. Forth: I shall certainly look at that, but this is exactly the sort of issue in which I do not want us to get involved. What we must do—until today there has been a broad measure of agreement on this—is to try to focus attention on the Bill's aims and motivations. We must ensure that it makes proper progress through the House, receives proper scrutiny and is on the statute book before any rude interruptions. I fear that if we are tempted to act as Opposition Members are trying to tempt me to do now, we might jeopardise the Bill's progress. I accept the offer of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) as given in good faith, but there are 646 hon. Members—I exclude you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues for this purpose—and we cannot necessarily rely on them all to show such restraint and singlemindedness as the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: May I press the Minister on the assurances given by the Secretary of State? I hope that the Minister is not back-tracking on them because we would take a dim view of that.
I suggest that the Minister talks to his departmental officials at the earliest opportunity to find out whether my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is right. I give the Minister the assurance that, as we have already said, we have no intention of frustrating the Bill. If any strange event were to take place, the Bill would be given the quickest journey through the House and, I hope, through the other place. There is no question of any hon. Member trying to frustrate the Bill. I urge the Minister to consider seriously whether the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North is possible.

Mr. Forth: I accept the hon. Gentleman's offer on the basis on which it was made. The hon. Gentleman knows that it would be more than my job was worth to attempt to go back on undertakings given by my right hon. and learned Friend. He can be certain that that will not happen. I hope that Opposition Members will accept in good faith the undertakings given by my right hon. and learned Friend and myself and that they will accept that we seek to find the best possible way forward to meet the important points about victimisation. We do not dissent from the arguments of substance which have been made, but we ask Opposition Members to allow us to deal with the matter in the most effective way available to us.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield raised an important point about why there had been no prosecutions following Piper Alpha. As he is an expert on such matters, the hon. Gentleman knows better than I that public prosecutions in

Scotland are a matter for the Lord Advocate. He decided in the Piper Alpha case that there was insufficient evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt whether there was any criminal responsibility for the disaster. Applying the ordinary standard of proof in civil cases to the evidence presented at the public inquiry, there had to be proof on the balance of probabilities. Regrettably and tragically, there was no direct evidence in the Piper Alpha case because little equipment was recovered and many of the key people involved tragically lost their lives in the accident. No new evidence came to light after the disaster, so the burden of proof was dependent on inference. The view was taken that a successful criminal prosecution required evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt the cause of the disaster and that evidence simply was not available.

Mr. Frank Doran: As a Scottish lawyer, may I make the simple point that the Lord Advocate looked carefully at the question of a prosecution for culpable homicide? I agree with his decision that there was not enough evidence for all the reasons that the Minister has given. Our quibble is with the Lord Advocate's decision not to prosecute under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for which there is ample evidence as shown by Lord Cullen's report.

Mr. Forth: It would be inappropriate for us to dwell on the matter unnecessarily or to attempt to second-guess the decisions of the Lord Advocate in Scotland on the matter. However, I will ask my colleagues to consider again the hon. Gentleman's point to see what substance we can make of it. I have attempted to reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Sedgefield by putting on record the reasons why some people may find it difficult to understand why no prosecution was pursued.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) made a detailed point about certificates and the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) also touched on that point. The difficulty is that the two contributions made opposite points. My hon. Friend seemed to say that it was too easy to obtain the certificates, and that they were handed out with packets of cereal or like confetti. The hon. Gentleman then implied that it was difficult for people to obtain certificates because of the cost of obtaining the qualifications. I suppose that the true position lies somewhere between the two. The offshore petroleum industry training organisation has now established a data base to provide details of the courses attended. The idea is that it can check more accurately whether people have done the courses, and I hope that that answers the point made by my hon. Friend. She gave me her apologies earlier for being unable to be here for this stage of the debate.
I will look again at the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. It is worrying if people are being deterred from obtaining such a certificate of qualification by prohibitive costs. The local enterprise companies in Scotland would want to consider the matter, although I doubt whether at this stage we should want to regard it as the responsibility of the LECs to give individual support or subsidy to people seeking such a qualification. I do not rule that out completely, but I believe that we should consider the matter carefully before going down such a route.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful for the Minister's sympathetic response to my point. In a constituency such as mine there are many highly skilled men, such as shipbuilders and welders, out of work. In many cases, because they are unemployed, they are deterred from seeking the vital certificate because of the cost involved in having to travel to Grampian to undertake the training at the Robert Gordon institute of technology. That is the problem.

Mr. Forth: If the hon. Gentleman waits for a few days, he may be made aware of developments emanating from a source not far from me now which may interest him and which may deal with that point. The issue has an application wider even than the application that the hon. Gentleman describes. We are very much seized of that point and we want to take action as soon as possible on it. I am being terribly careful in what I say and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands why.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I hope that the Minister is not speaking about the date that must not be mentioned.
Does the Minister agree that when individuals have raised money to pay for the offshore survival course, it is disgraceful that they should be denied unemployment benefit on the basis that they are unavailable for work while they are on the training course? Is that still the case? Will the Department change that rule?

Mr. Forth: That is not my direct responsibility, but I will ask my colleague the Under-Secretary of State to reply to the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to give an inaccurate answer from the Dispatch Box. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives a reply as soon as possible.

Mr. Salmond: Given that the Minister is in such expansive mood I will press him on the matter of training. The Minister may not be aware that Scottish Enterprise is considering a proposal at present. Although we have some excellent training establishments onshore, there may be a gap in the market, not only for the North sea, but internationally, for training that mimics offshore conditions on semi-submersibles. Would the Department of Employment be willing to co-operate on that?

Mr. Forth: Certainly it would. However, I believe that if Scottish Enterprise has the matter in hand, it could not be better dealt with. I shall introduce a tiny degree of controversy by saying that some of us south of the border are always envious of the resources and resourcefulness of those north of the border in dealing with such matters. I will go even further while I am in an expansive mood and say that we often look at what happens north of the border to give us inspiration and we then follow. In this case, we may want to follow.
I will move on rapidly and I will deal with the points made by—I seem to have dealt with all of this already—[HON. MEMBERS: "The peroration."] No, it is not yet the peroration. I will deal with the important points made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow about standby vessels. Following the recommendations by Lord Cullen, that is one of the points in which I took a particular interest. I think that Opposition Members have accepted that we have had to strike a careful balance throughout between using the maximum speed in improving the standards of standby vessels and not imposing impractical standards which might reduce the

number of vessels available. That could jeopardise the number of installations which could operate and, therefore, the number of jobs that people could do.
There is a balance to be struck between the absolute imperative of safety and the practicability of moving forward on this basis. The Health and Safety Executive looked at the matter and last July—partly, if I may say so, at my urging—issued a new code defining new standards for standby vessels. As I am sure the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow knows, the first trip date was 1 January 1992, by which time matters of equipment on the vessels had to be dealt with. The further vital date of 31 December 1992 is the date by which all vessels must comply fully with the requirements. The United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association—the industry organisation—has undertaken to charter vessels only if they comply with the code.
I believe that substantial progress has been made—and probably the most rapid progress that could reasonably have been expected in this difficult area. There were many years of neglect on which to catch up. I believe that we have done that promptly and thoroughly and—this is important—have carried the industry with us. That was the right way in which to proceed as I hope the hon. Member for Port Glasgow agrees. It is certainly a matter on which we shall keep a close eye because we do not want there to be any suggestion that there is any backsliding. So far no such suggestion has been made, and I hope that the Opposition will accept that we are striking the right balance, making progress where it can be delivered practically in terms of vessels in attendance on installations.
Let me repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said about the review, which is a matter highly relevant to hon. Members' comments about the role of trade unions and trade union members in health and safety representation. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the commitment, given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy in September 1989, to review the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989. We have honoured that commitment, and the review is now under way. It commenced only recently and will take about nine months to complete. The Health and Safety Executive will then want to consult a wide range of interested parties and will then make its recommendations to the commission—the tripartite body on which trade unions are represented. At that point, a balanced judgment can be made on the best way forward. I hope that the Opposition agree that that is a reasonable way to proceed. I believe that it is. The review will be impartial, thorough and professional and will then be dealt with by the commission, which is independent of the Government and in a good position to decide the best way forward.
I hope that I have dealt with the point raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow about our shared desire to see the provision on the statute book. I can give an absolute commitment that it is the aim of my right hon. and learned Friend and myself that the measure will reach the statute book as soon as it has been given due scrutiny in Committee and with the co-operation of all hon. Members involved. I am pleased that the Bill has had such widespread support in the House.
Knowing the hon. Member for Linlithgow as I do, I think that he will understand that I should like to reply to


his question about recommendation 57 in writing. It is an important point, and I want to deal with it properly and in detail.

Mr. Dalyell: indicated assent.

Mr. Forth: I am pleased to see that the hon. Gentleman has accepted that.

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister now confirm that the Bill is utterly compatible with the draft directive?

Mr. Forth: The answer is yes. I am sorry that I had missed that point, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of it.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) asked me about a newspaper report concerning the alleged privatisation of the electrical equipment certification service. I should have thought that, having been in the House and in politics for so long, the hon. Gentleman would know that he must not believe all that he reads in the newspapers—indeed, I am sure that he does not. The service is under review by the HSE and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will want to await the outcome of the review, in which a wide range of options will be looked at and in which recommendations will be made as to how best to proceed. That will be done against the background of the fact that the very existence of the executive is predicated on the assumption that we must maintain the highest possible health and safety standards at all times. Nothing that the HSE would do or recommend would prejudice that.
The hon. Member for Stretford also referred to a rising tide of death and injury in industry. I have heard him say something similar before, and have been disappointed for a number of reasons. There is no statistical or factual evidence to suggest such a rising tide. Moreover, the

mapping exercise done recently by the Health and Safety Commission compared our health and safety record with that of France, Italy, Germany and Spain and found that we were as good as any of them and better than most. I am disappointed, therefore, that the hon. Member for Stretford should repeatedly make such allegations both inside and outside the House. That does no good to the HSE or the country, and it is simply not true.
I am grateful to all those hon. Members who have participated in the debate for the positive way in which they have lent their support to the aims and objectives of the Bill and, indeed, to most of its contents. If the House gives the Bill its Second Reading, I hope that we shall continue in this constructive spirit in Committee, seeking to fashion a Bill that will make a major contribution to the health and safety of all those operating offshore. The best thing that we can do for the relatives of the victims of the Piper Alpha tragedy and for those who survived it is to produce a good Bill in a timeous fashion. I hope that the House will share that aim and will give the Bill its Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — OFFSHORE SAFETY BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Offshore Safety Bill [Lords] it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Wood.]

Orders of the Day — Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved.
As hon. Members will appreciate, industrial relations in the 1980s have been transformed in a way that would have been inconceivable in the 1970s. The confrontation between manager and worker has been largely eroded. Perhaps the clearest evidence of that is the reduction in working days lost due to industrial disputes. In the United Kingdom in the 1970s, nearly 13 million working days were lost each year because of industrial action, but in 1990 this had fallen to fewer than 2 million. In most workplaces, co-operation and partnership are the order of the day, but that is not all; productivity has been increased and much of our lost competitiveness has been regained.
Great Britain's poor industrial relations record in the 1970s was closely paralleled in Northern Ireland, which makes it just as important that the process of step-by-step reform of industrial relations law be extended to Northern Ireland. Those who would contend that there is no need for the Great Britain reforms to be applied in Northern Ireland should remember that, in the last five years of the 1970s, the average number of days lost in Northern Ireland was more numerous than in Great Britain. On too many of our shop floors the "I'm all right, Jack" attitude seems to have crossed the Irish sea. Now all that is beginning to change.
The Government have, through the industrial relations orders of 1982 and 1987, already replicated in Northern Ireland the first two tranches of the Great Britain reforms and the benefits can clearly be seen in the much improved industrial relations performance. It is worth reiterating that, during the last five years of the 1970s, the days lost in Northern Ireland averaged 565 per year per thousand employees, in contrast with an average of 128 days per year in the last five years of the 1980s. In other words, four times as many working days were lost in the last five years of the 1970s as were lost in the last five years of the 1980s.
The 1991 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development economic report on the United Kingdom described as "impressive" the Government's structural reforms such as deregulation, privatisation and employment legislation, indicating that they were reversing the United Kingdom's relative economic decline. We are following all those routes in Northern Ireland to improve our competitiveness. It is important for employers—local, national and international—that the improvements in employment law established elsewhere in the country are reflected equally in legislation in Northern Ireland.
It is also important for workers in Northern Ireland that, like their counterparts across the water, they are entitled to expect their unions to be democratic institutions responsive to their wishes. Equally, responsible unions will wish to ensure that the policies that they are pursuing reflect the views and interests of their members. The public, too, will have greater confidence when they see that union procedures are operated in an open and democratic manner.
Thus the secret balloting provisions, which are at the heart of the proposed order, will ensure that members of

unions have a real say in the two key areas of who shall lead them and whether they take industrial action. The order regulates the way in which unions run their affairs and gives remedies for union members who consider that their democratic rights have been infringed.
The Government believe that it is right that there should be a certification officer in Northern Ireland. The post of certification officer in Great Britain was established in 1975 under a Labour Administration. The order also mirrors Great Britain by establishing a post of commissioner for the rights of trade union members.
The order also removes the statutory support for closed shops, which constitute an unacceptable barrier to employment, limit job opportunities and drive up labour costs. I think that perhaps now even the most left-wing of Opposition Members realise the damage done to the image of trade unions among ordinary people by the denial of freedom which any closed shop must bring. I am delighted that, as with many other parts of the order, the Labour party is now converted to our view, even though it strenuously opposed and voted against the equivalent reforms when they were proposed in Great Britain. Perhaps the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) can now tell the House whether the Pauline conversion of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) applies to him. Perhaps he could take this opportunity —I am sure that he will—to clarify what Labour would intend to do, if it were to occupy the Government Benches, in respect of many of the proposals in the order of which the hon. Member for Sedgefield now appears to approve.
All the provisions in the order have been operating effectively in the rest of the country and I am encouraged in moving the order by the fact that it contains nothing that has not already been proved to be important and worth while in practice. That applies to secret ballots for union leadership, for strikes, and even for political funds. If trade unions in Great Britain can follow proper democratic procedures, I am sure that there will be no difficulties in practice in Northern Ireland.
In the wider aspects of democracy in Northern Ireland, the trade union movement has given a most courageous and responsible lead in keeping sectarian tensions off the shop floor and encouraging and supporting full equality of employment opportunities. I mention fair emloyment becuse the order makes some minor and technical amendments to the fair emloyment legislation which gives me an opportunity to underline the Government's commitment to tackling the problems of religious discrimination in employment and to pay tribute to the unions and hon. Members who support that legislation. Just last week the Irish Congress of Trade Unions organised a large rally outside Belfast city hall to express abhorrence at the sectarian killings and to stress the right to life. I count it as a privilege that I attended the rally and I was heartened by the messages of support from Great Britain and Irish trade union leaders.
However, there is a balance to be struck between trade unions in their social and political role and the power of trade unions in the workplace. Perhaps I may give the House two examples. First, we have managed to attract a large proportion of southern trade through Northern Ireland ports. One of the reasons for that is our good industrial relations record in contrast to some of that in southern ports. I believe that this legislation will help to continue that difference by keeping out disruptive elements.


Secondly, we must think about inward investors, particularly those from the United States and Japan, who have had in the past an image of the United Kingdom as a strike-ridden and disorganised area. That has now changed and, if Northern Ireland is to compete with the rest of the country in attempts to attract outside investment, we need the same framework of trade union law.

Rev. Ian Paisley: As the order impinges on the fair employment legislation in respect of article 106, what has happened about the form that was circulated widely by firms demanding the name of someone's father, the name of the father's employer, the names of that person's brothers and sisters and the names of their employers? If that form has now been withdrawn, is it not unfair that the people who would not fill in that form did not have an interview and therefore jeopardised their right to be employed by particular firms, especially in the centre of Belfast?

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman has raised that point with me previously and he was right to do so. As far as I am aware, the form has been withdrawn, but I will confirm that. As for the rights of those who may have been affected because they refused to complete the form, that is clearly a matter which they could take before the commission. If the hon. Gentleman knows of any examples, I am sure that he will be in touch with me about them.
I have put the draft order out for wide consultation and I decided, particularly in the light of the sensitivity of the legislation and the important role of the trade unions in Northern Ireland, to give as much time as possible. I started that process in September 1990. Since then, I have had no response or requests for meetings from any of the Northern Ireland political parties. As to the representations that I did receive, all employer organisations pressed for parity and the trade unions opposed all the changes in the order.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before the Minister moves on from the role of the trade unions, will he clarify one point? Recollecting the highly questionable role in the mid-1980s in relation to the miners' strike, what are we to make of reports today that M15 plans to take over Scotland Yard's IRA role? What are we to make of the arguments between on one side senior officials at the Home Office such as Mr. Ian Burns, and the Metropolitan police, and on the other side—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I do not see that this has a great deal to do with the matter before the House.

Mr. Dalyell: If the press reports are to be believed, it has a great deal to do with the role of the trade unions in Northern Ireland and their democratic rights. Therefore, I think that it was a legitimate question.

Mr. Needham: I always admire the hon. Gentleman's use of parliamentary procedure to make his point. However, it is stretching it a bit far to say that the reports to which he refers will have any effect on trade union members in Northern Ireland and I have to tell him that the reports have absolutely nothing to do with the order.
The main concern that the unions put to me was the question of retaining trade union statutory recognition. I

thought long and hard about that and went back to employers' organisations for their views. However, for the reasons that I have just given, and the need to retain and attract inward investment, I was not prepared to accede to their requests.
We have had representations from potential and existing investors that they would either not come or withdraw because of the differences between mainland law and our own. I see no reason in principle why trade unions should not have to fight for the loyalty of their workers in the workplace by the quality of the services that they offer rather than through statutory protection. In the past, I believe that that has led to the leadership becoming remote from the views of their workers. I do not believe that statutory recognition has done anything to improve the lot of trade union members in Northern Ireland since 1982 when we last reviewed the situation. As hon. Members will know, up to this year there has been an increasing tide of inward investment and many interesting projects are in the pipeline.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Minister referred specifically to Japan earlier. Does he agree with the comments made by his predecessor in the Department, Mr. Adam Butler, who was responsible for economic development, and who said:
The Province offers industry an industrial relations record equal to that of West Germany and Japan, and the most productive and efficient workforce in Europe, with the highest academic standards.
How can the Minister reconcile the then Minister's view with the view that, in effect, this legislation is required to make us competitive with Germany and Japan?

Mr. Needham: Because we have moved on since then. In 1982, there was no Japanese investment in Northern Ireland and there was no Korean investment in Northern Ireland. There was no investment from a range of companies that have since come in. As I have said, it is very important to ensure that what we do in Northern Ireland gives us the same opportunity to garner inward investment, such as exists in Wales, Scotland or anywhere else in the country. I do not believe that that would be the case if we had let the recognition procedures remain. For the reasons that I have given, it is up to the trade unions to fight their corner, to get members and to ensure that when they have them they do not just rely on the law to keep them, but maintain the quality of service which will keep their members happy.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Granted that a trade union meets all the criteria that the Minister has laid down, how would he guarantee to the trade union that the employer would recognise the right of that trade union to represent its members?

Mr. Needham: There cannot be any guarantee, any more than there is in the rest of the country. The hon. Gentleman knows that in Northern Ireland employee-employer relations are good and that a strong trade union organisation is very unlikely to be rejected by an employer on the good ground that, if he were to do so, it would be difficult to show that he had the full confidence of his work force. I see no need for there to be such a statutory recognition, which does not exist anywhere else in the country.

Mr. McNamara: In that case, why is it necessary to advance that as an argument for encouraging inward


investment? If relations are that strong, why should potential employers not be told that we have a strong, skilled, well represented and well-motivated work force represented by trade unions and that therefore they should recognise them and negotiate with them?

Mr. Needham: For the reason that it may be the wish of an employer to do exactly that. However, I do not see any reason why there should be statutory procedures for that. As I have said—the hon. Gentleman knows this as well as I do—the main importance in Northern Ireland is to try to attract investment into Northern Ireland and to grow the companies that we have there. To do that, it is crucial that employment law in Northern Ireland mirrors that in the rest of the country. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we are going to get American, German, Korean and Japanese investment into Northern Ireland by allowing companies from those countries to come in on the back of statutory trade union recognition rights—I give him an example which he may think is amusing, but it is not amusing when we have 14 per cent unemployment and we are struggling to get investment into Northern Ireland—I can tell him that that would act as a disincentive.
As I have said, I thought long and hard about that matter, not least, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has mentioned, because of what my predecessor said. I came to my decision, and I am sure that, in the light of the image that we have at the moment and our need to get investment, it is the right decision.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the Minister saying that there is nothing wrong with the trade unions who operate in Northern Ireland? He has praised many of their activities and the cross-community connections that they engage in. However, the problem is overseas investment into Northern Ireland and the perception of people elsewhere. Are we altering the law to try to influence people overseas in terms of investment, instead of trying to explain to them what the situation is in Northern Ireland? Therefore, there is no need for such an order.

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman spends much time on Northern Ireland affairs, and for that the people of Northern Ireland are grateful, but he has not yet been involved in trying to persuade those from overseas to change their perceptions about Northern Ireland. There are a great number of perceptions about Northern Ireland. My job and that of the business community is to try to ensure that there is as level a playing field in terms of attracting investment to Northern Ireland as possible. Trade union legislation, for the reasons that I have given, matters. For those reasons, it is important to ensure that there is parity between the two sides of Northern Ireland and the rest of the country.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister really saying that the difficulty in getting inward investment in Northern Ireland is the present trade union legislation? We have heard the appalling figure today—in nine months the Industrial Development Board secured 44 jobs. Is the Minister saying that that is why the IDB is not making progress? While there may be people from Northern Ireland who are quite happy with this legislation, I do not think that anybody would suggest that that is the great difficulty in obtaining

inward investment in Northern Ireland. I am glad that the boss of the IDB has gone. Perhaps there will be some more jobs. One job a week is not a good tally.

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman must not let pigeons out of his loft, shoot them and then say to me that I had been part of the release. I have never said that trade union recognition was the main reason why we were failing to get inward investment. Least of all was it the reason why the IDB figures were so low last year. I said that there have been those who wanted to bring investment to Northern Ireland, but who did not do so, said that they would not do so, and even thought of going elsewhere with their future investment, because trade union law in Northern Ireland was different from that in the rest of the country.
Whereas I accept and have praised the social and often political role of trade unions in Northern Ireland, that cannot always be said about the role of trade unions in the economic sphere. I quoted—I think that the hon. Gentleman was present—what the figures were at the end of the 1970s, when they were worse than in the rest of the country. I shall not bother to quote the firms from which those figures came; the hon. Gentleman knows them as well as I do. I do not believe that it makes any sense even to consider giving trade unions in Northern Ireland the power which, in some circumstances in the wrong hands, could take us back to those problems in some areas of Northern Ireland industry.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Needham: I have given way five times. The hon. Gentleman can make his speech. There is plenty of time. I am sure that he will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Flannery: On this point?

Mr. Needham: I should like to get on. If there is time later, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Flannery: I am sorry that the Minister will not allow—

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech in his own time.
Secondly, the unions made a strong argument for changing the rules on political subscription from contracting in to contracting out. I have to say that I find that a quite astonishing suggestion from the paymasters of the Labour party. Why on earth should working people in Northern Ireland have to contract out of paying a levy to a political party which wishes to hand them over to another jurisdiction where not only is there a lower standard of living but whose social policy would be bitterly opposed by the vast majority of British trade union members? Perhaps when the Labour party agrees to allow the people of Northern Ireland to join it, and when it is prepared to accept without qualification the wishes of the majority of Ulster people to stay in the United Kingdom, there might be a case for considering a change. Until then, it is cheeky hypocrisy, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. It is a policy of "I'll take your money, Barney, but you will not be invited to the feast."
As to the other points that were raised by the unions, I accept that, so far in Northern Ireland, we have maintained a good working relationship between Government, employers and unions, and I wish that to continue. I have, for example, recently established new


consultative machinery, involving, among others, the unions, to assist the Government with the task of economic regeneration in Northern Ireland.
To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) about the IDB, until this year it has had an increasing rate of success in attracting inward investment to Northern Ireland. Certainly in the past year its success has been disappointing, and not only for the IDB. In the middle of a major recession, it has also been extremely difficult for any Government inward investment agency anywhere in Europe to attract inward investment. However, a considerable number of projects are in the pipeline. It would be entirely wrong to try to massage the figures, rather than to try to ensure that the IDB makes certain that the inward investment that we get comes to stay, is profitable and brings the right long-term employment for Northern Ireland.
I am a former member of the National Graphical Association. I have had my fingers badly burnt, so I doubt whether it is wise to leave industrial relations matters entirely to good will. As some 80 per cent. of Northern Ireland union members belong to Great Britain unions, I strongly support parity on industrial relations law, as I do on many other economic issues on which the trade unions also have no difficulty in supporting me.
Whatever distinguished economists may wish to write from the safety of their Victorian towers, the fact is that Northern Ireland has done better than most other regions of the United Kingdom in working its way through the recession. I congratulate employers and workers on that achievement. One has only to see what has happened to Shorts in the east, or to Desmonds or Maydown in the west to realise what can be done to increase productivity and competitiveness. Because of our image, we have to create the best possible environment to attract long-term inward investment, as well as ensuring that our indigenous industry grows, and grows fast.
The order, by democratising trade unions and giving greater freedom to employers to get on with the job of making and selling their products in a more productive business atmosphere, will help to continue the improvement that I am convinced has already begun, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The Minister declared his interest as a former member of the National Graphical Association. I declare mine as a current member of the Transport and General Workers Union—or the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union, as it is known in Ireland—of which I have been a member since July 1963. I am proud and privileged to be the secretary of its parliamentary group.
The Minister's speech—the figures that he gave and the arguments which he seemed to be advancing—appeared to be parodying the well-known expression that Northern Ireland is "a problem without a solution." By contrast, the order is a solution without a problem.
The Minister's speech was noticeable for its concentration on the details of proposals contained in the order. He clearly failed to provide any evidence showing that the order is necessary, desirable or even beneficial to Northern Ireland. He cannot claim to make such advances as he did on the basis that he has made them while existing law has been in operation. It is not surprising that the Government

are finding it hard to make a rational case, because the explanatory document which accompanied the original draft was distinguished by its complete failure to give any sign of the real reasons why any such legislation should be necessary for Northern Ireland, other than the fact that there is similar legislation in Great Britain.
On several occasions, the Minister was asked to fill that gap and he failed to do so. The Minister has not justified the order and he cannot do so. He cannot claim that there is a problem to which this so-called solution corresponds. There is no evidence of any industrial relations difficulties which are hindering economic growth and employment prospects in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the official organised trade union movement falls over backwards in its attempts to encourage prospective employers to come to Northern Ireland. They are members of every ministerial team and delegation which goes to America and elsewhere in search of employment.
There is no evidence to suggest that trade unions have been guilty of any abuse of their position in Northern Ireland. Such evidence as exists shows that the trade union movement in Northern Ireland has always behaved with the utmost sense of responsibility. Indeed, last month's demonstrations—which the Minister mentioned—against the Teebane massacre gave the lie to the suggestion that trade unions in Northern Ireland, politically, economically or socially, are anything other than responsible in their attitudes, because they know that their members' lives, incomes and hopes for employment depend on their responsibility.
Further, the Minister knows as well as all hon. Members of the enormous debt owed to officers and officials of the trade union movement in terms of industrial relations and a wider social harmony. Their ability to act has been based on their recognition by workers who have elected them to their positions of responsibility—their recognition of their responsibility not only economically on the factory floor but also socially. Their ability to act in one area has depended upon their ability to act in the other.
The trade unions have led the way in anti-intimidation and anti-discrimination campaigns in Northern Ireland, but they have been able to do so and have had great success in keeping it outside the work force because one could not distinguish their industrial role in any way. That role was economic and was concerned with defending the working conditions and incomes of their members.
The order is as irrelevant to the real economic and social problems facing employers and employees in Northern Ireland as the recent proposals put forward by the Secretary of State for Employment are to those of us living in Great Britain. I have no doubt that the order will be seen as yet one more cynical attempt by the Government to divert attention from their disastrous legacy of high unemployment, bad investment and bad growth.
The Minister regards his order as a modernisation of the industrial relations framework. I cannot accept that, since one of the most basic elements of a modern industrial society is fairness. That is a quality which is distinctly lacking in the legislation before the House tonight.
This legislation is intended to strengthen the hands of employers at the expense of organisations representing employees and nothing could have been made clearer from the Minister's statements. We do not believe that a


framework which seeks to damage the interests of employees can be in the ultimate interests of industry as a whole, or of society.
As well as being deficient in terms of fairness between employees and employers, there is a grave doubt about the extent to which the realities of life in Northern Ireland have been taken into account. For example, while postal ballots for union elections and ballots on industrial action are perfectly sensible, the legislation does not adequately take into account the security implications of the requirement to maintain a list of members. Members of unions in security sensitive posts, union members who are also part-time members of the security forces and those who are employed by firms carrying out work on behalf of the Crown would find themselves placed in an invidious and dangerous position. It is especially ironic when one considers that the Government advise many employees to ensure that their names do not appear on lists of any sort which are open to external scrutiny, but then in trade union legislation they demand that employees' names should be on lists openly available.
After much pressure, the Minister began to recognise that there was a difficulty here. Although he has made some improvement on the previous draft, it is not clear that the full implications have been taken on board and that they will be effective to any extent. Therefore, we can legitimately claim that the legislation will put at risk the position of union members in the categories I have already outlined.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely that point was raised in regard to the fair employment legislation, to which the hon. Gentleman's attitude was entirely different. I would be more concerned if lists of religious affiliations were available, as they are through the fair employment legislation. I accept his point that the proposed lists are dangerous in the present situation and that people may be put at risk. Perhaps those on this side of the water do not realise how much people fear that they are to be put at risk. However, the fair employment legislation poses an even greater risk because religious affiliation is made known and available. From recent publications, it is clear that employers with just a small number of employees have listed their religious affiliations.

Mr. McNamara: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not accept his point. I do not believe that people are specifically targeted because of their religious affiliations. I do not accept that those people should be called, of all things, legitimate targets because of their position as members of the security forces or because of the work that they carry out on behalf of the security forces.
The decision to limit the power of unions to exercise disciplinary powers over their members is somewhat worrying. Again the Minister has failed to show that such powers have been abused in the past. What he appears to have neglected is the extraordinary heroism that many full-time and lay officials have demonstrated in the workplace. I do not believe that anything that affects their ability to provide positive and constructive leadership is in the best interests of Northern Ireland. The ability to cock a snook in the workplace at authority or lay officials or

elected shop stewards could undermine much of the work which the Minister has praised and which has been carried out by trade unions.
The Minister should reflect on the role of the Northern Ireland Committee Irish Congress of Trade Unions. It is one of the few organisations in Northern Ireland to cross the sectarian divide. It preserves unity among employees who come from very different traditions. Can the Minister assure the House that he is confident that nothing in the legislation will hinder the officers of the NICTU and its affiliate unions in their tasks?
The Minister will also be aware of certain anomalies in the legislation. It is incorrect to claim that the order replicates Great Britain legislation when there are substantial differences in areas that would have enhanced the position of trade unions and their members. For instance, on the provisions governing the political funds, the order reproduces the 1927 legislation. The Minister says that the order means that money will be denied to the pockets of the Labour party. It does nothing of the sort. All the legislation does is to enable unions to have political funds. It does not say that political funds have to be used or that unions have to affiliate to the Labour party. Many of the unions in Northern Ireland that collect money in this particular way keep that money in Northern Ireland. Many unions that have political funds do not affiliate to the Labour party. The union for which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) speaks is not affiliated to the Labour party.

Mr. David Trimble: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that about 90 per cent. of trade unionists in Northern Ireland belong to British trade unions, the majority of which are affiliated to the British Labour party. Is not it the case that the vast majority of those British trade unionists who contract in to pay the political levy believe that they are helping to advance the cause of the British Labour party? Is not it therefore fraudulent for that tightly knit group of politically motivated men to hold that money back within separate Northern Ireland political funds and apply them to other purposes? Surely the hon. Gentleman, as a representative of the British Labour party, should be trying to put an end to that fraudulent conduct.

Mr. McNamara: If the hon. Gentleman is able, outside the House, to substantiate that claim about particular people in particular organisations, I am sure that they would be pleased to see the evidence on which he has based that accusation and deal with it properly.
A surprising number of figures have been advanced about the number of trade unions affiliated to the British Trades Union Congress. The largest local government and civil service trade union in Northern Ireland is not affiliated to the British TUC. Many other trade unions in Northern Ireland are not affiliated to the British TUC. Some trade unions organise north and south of the border. Some trade unions organise in this island and in Northern Ireland. Some trade unions organise in this island, in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. Some trade unions only organise in this island and some then organise in England and Wales but not in Scotland, and vice versa. There is a whole range of different circumstances. The suggestion that 80 per cent. of all trade unionists are affiliated to British-based trade unions is open to considerable correction.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I intervene to make the point that the Minister would not allow me to make. The trade union movement is recognised internationally by the United Nations through the International Labour Organisation. In this country certain unions, including the National Union of Teachers, are forbidden by the Government to have any negotiating rights because the Government are their masters. The Government have been condemned three times by the ILO for not recognising that trade unions have the right under international law to negotiate. However, the Government, when acting as an employer, will not allow them to have that right. That attitude pervades the Government's approach to trade unions, and they are displaying that same attitude to trade unions in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara: I much regret that my hon. Friend will not be a Member after the election to see that anomaly and abuse rectified.
The second concept on which the Minister is not prepared to give parity with the rest of the United Kingdom relates to employment appeals tribunals. They are not to apply to Northern Ireland. Appeals are to go to the courts, which will be a slow procedure, and it will be difficult for them to reach conclusions.
In sum, the order represents a vindictive, petty-minded 19th century approach to industrial relations. The Labour party believes in partnership in industry rather than in division. We believe in a collective approach in the workplace and in wider society. Without co-operation, Northern Ireland will sink; with it, it will survive and prosper.
The Opposition believe in a fair and efficient framework for industrial relations which harnesses the spirit of partnership and co-operative endeavour in the workplace. We believe in an advanced, high technological society where Britain will be among the leaders rather than the laggards in the European Community.
The real problems of Northern Ireland will be resolved only by a positive partnership between the Government, employers and employees and with a common commitment to training, research and industrial development. We believe that the best interests of employers and employees will be best served if there are effective rights and duties to make the most of one's talents and to open opportunities to the widest possible extent within society.
At the beginning of his speech, the Minister asked what the Labour party's attitude was to a number of matters. It might be helpful if I were to explain what an incoming Labour Government will introduce in Northern Ireland. First, there will be basic employment rights for all employees which will come into force, whatever the hours they work or the company size, on their first day at work. There will be equal legal status for all workers, including part-time, temporary and sub-contracted home workers, most of whom are women. There will be a charter for all employees, offering new rights and protections, including parental leave for people with family responsibilities, a statutory minimum wage, full trade union representation, protection against discrimination and unfair dismissal, and improved health and safety. The European social charter will he implemented and that will give further protection at work. Employers will be responsible in law for promoting equal treatment at work for all their

employees, particularly for women and disabled people. There will be a fairer, more stable legal framework for industrial relations.
We need to guarantee basic rights for all in our society and in industry, particularly women, disabled people and the low paid. We need a system of industrial relations where unions play their full role in protecting the interests of employees and protecting economic growth. On the basis of this order, we cannot get that until the Government are removed from office, and the sooner the better. We oppose the order.

Mr. Roy Beggs: The opposition of Ulster Unionists to debates on Orders in Council that cannot be amended is well recorded. I draw attention to the motion in the names of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and other hon. Members regarding the Select Committee on Northern Ireland. Natural justice should bring about a Select Committee on Northern Ireland, with the approval of the whole House, and matters such as those before us tonight should be properly debated and amended. if desirable, in a Select Committee on Northern Ireland.
In the Green Paper "Industrial Relations in the 90s" reference is made in paragraph 1 in the introduction to the widely held view of Britain's industrial relations problems of the 1960s and 1970s. It says:
nothing did more to damage the reputation of the British economy abroad or to undermine confidence at home in the possibility of economic recovery than the belief that these problems were beyond any real or lasting solutions.
Paragraph 1.2 says that Britain's poor industrial relations were generally acknowledged to be a fundamental cause of weaknesses in the British economy. Britain's industrial record of strikes, restrictive practices and overmanning seriously and persistently damaged its ability to compete in the markets of the world. Under the heading "Industrial Relations in the 1980s", in paragraph 1.5, we are told:
Now as Britain enters the last decade of the twentieth century. the situation has been transformed. During the 1980s Britain's industrial relations have seen improvements which would have been inconceivable in the two previous decades.
The economy of Northern Ireland is closely linked to that of the rest of the United Kingdom. If the economy in the rest of Great Britain catches a cold, the economy of Northern Ireland gets pneumonia. The economy in Great Britain can recover fairly quickly, but the agony of Northern Ireland is prolonged and it takes a long time to recover lost markets and employment opportunities. Northern Ireland has always suffered from high unemployment. It may have suffered from the poor image internationally of British industrial relations. Therefore, the changes in industrial relations legislation in Great Britain, which have helped to transform the perception of Britain's industrial relations, are welcomed by my party.
It is satisfying to know that the transformation of Britain's industrial relations has helped Britain to secure and maintain the highest share of American and Japanese investment of any member state of the European Community. At last, positive spin-off is reaching Northern Ireland, where American and Japanese companies are providing stable employment and prospects for expansion.
If the changes in the legislation outlined in the order—for example, that agreements entered into between


employers and trade unions will become contracts enforceable in law, requiring each party to the agreements reached to seek to avoid industrial unrest—give more confidence to overseas investors to locate in Northern Ireland, the legislation will bring benefits to Northern Ireland's economy and with that hopes for the long-term unemployed.
International companies should be made aware that, even in the absence of the Order in Council, industrial relations in Northern Ireland have been among the best in the United Kingdom. According to the Employment Gazette, some 1,903 strikes were recorded in the United Kingdom in 1990. The region with the highest number had 722 or 37·9 per cent. Another had 523 strikes or 27·3 per cent. I shall not mention those regions for fear of further damage to their image, but the world deserves to know, and it must be recognised, that Northern Ireland had the fewest strikes of any region of the United Kingdom with only 18 or 0·9 per cent.
Industrial relations reform in Great Britain has contributed to significant improvement in industrial relations and subsequently a significant overall reduction in the number of strikes and days lost. While the Employment Gazette of July 1991 confirms that stoppages in Northern Ireland were the lowest by region in the United Kingdom in 1990, one must assume that the record for the fewest strikes will be held by Northern Ireland when the order becomes law.
The order will give comfort to employers and protect the rights of trade unionists. The absence of abuse of trade union power in Northern Ireland will mean that, although the order may improve industrial relations, it will not result in major changes. The vast majority of trade unionists in Northern Ireland are law abiding and would not support or encourage unlawful behaviour. Traditionally, high unemployment has meant that those fortunate enough to find work do not jeopardise their employment by industrial unrest. The Northern Ireland work force is open to exploitation and the order will provide some protection.
Article 5 says:
The Certification Officer shall maintain a list of trade unions and list of employers' associations containing the names of those organisations which are entitled to have their names entered therein under the following provisions of this Article.
The certification officer can remove the name of an organisation from a list if it appears to him
not to be a trade union or … employers' association … but shall not do so without giving the organisation notice of his intention to do so and without considering any representations made to him".
Under paragraphs 3 and 4, an organisation can be entered in the list for a fee of £45. However, under article 6(2) an independent trade union has to pay £305 to be certificated. Is there some prejuice against a trade union being an independent trade union? How can it be justified that one body can register for £45 while £305 is sought from another?
I support the provisions that require the keeping of proper accounting records and the making of annual returns. It is only fair to their members that unions and employer associations keep such records. Memberships will be helped by the provision that the most recent annual returns must be available on request.
Article 32, in part IV, deals with the right to a ballot before industrial action is taken. I support the right of union members to stop their union calling them out on strike without a proper ballot. No organisation should be able to force its members to act against their will or conscience. Proper ballots should be held before a union can call a strike. It must be a call and not an order.
Being a trade union member should not place a man or woman at the behest of that organisation. He or she should enjoy the basic right of choice and should not be subject to discipline by the union for failing to respond to a call to participate in industrial action. Unions should be the instruments of the workers, rather than workers being the instruments of trade unions.
Collective action is an accepted norm in industry. It has always been used and it will continue to be used by workers if their representatives feel that they are being treated unfairly. That does not mean, however, that an individual must be a party to collective action that he feels it would not be appropriate to be party to as a matter of conscience. If the call is justified, workers will respond collectively. The measure of justification for corporate action will be the response of workers to it. Industrial action to enforce trade union membership is unacceptable in a free society. Provisions that prevent such action are, therefore, to be supported.
Article 106 in part XII introduces the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Acts. In Northern Ireland we have an horrendous situation in which a Government who are supposedly committed to freedom in the workplace have enacted legislation that encourages employers to recruit on the principle of merit while being expected to monitor religion to ensure that there is some sort of notional religious balance in the work force. Regardless of whether the workplace is based in a Protestant or Roman Catholic area of Northern Ireland, an employer must endeavour to ensure that there is a balance between Protestant and Roman Catholic employees despite the danger to which that might expose employees who, through the distorted employment map, may find that the only place where they can obtain work is in an area where they would rather not be.
Similarly, a trade union has no right to demand that recruits are union members. The fact that an applicant for a job is or is not a trade union member should be irrelevant to the selection process. Similarly, an employer should not be allowed to discriminate against an applicant on the ground that he is a trade union member. In Northern Ireland we are endeavouring to retain the merit principle in employment as against bureaucratic interference in the employment market. The illegality of industrial action to enforce trade union membership and the prevention of discrimination against trade union members are in accordance with our endeavours.
I support article 20 in part III, which is headed
Industrial action authorised or endorsed by trade union without support of a ballot".
The Ulster Unionist party supports measures to ensure that industrial action is called only as a result of such action being favoured by union members through a secret ballot. Shows of hands at factory gates discredit unions and are an infringement of personal liberty given the intimidatory nature of such gatherings. All union members should have the right to vote for or against industrial


action. They should have the right also not to take part in any such action, regardless of whether the majority is in favour of taking that action.
I support the provisions for secret ballots that are set out in part IV. The entitlement to vote in such a ballot must be accorded equally to all those members of the trade union who it is reasonable, at the time of the ballot, for the union to believe have a right to take part.
Part XI is headed
Machinery for Promoting Improvement of Industrial Relations".
It runs from article 82 to 90. Given the lack of research into industrial relations, the work of the Labour Relations Agency in producing its survey of the private sector in 1988, as well as its current work on the public sector, is to be commended. We look forward to its publication in due course.
Articles 91 to 94 refer to industrial courts and courts of inquiry. During a debate on 11 May 1987 on industrial relations in Northern Ireland the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who took a keen interest in Northern Ireland matters while he had ministerial responsibilities, said:
The vast majority of trade unions operating in Northern Ireland—there are 88—are Great Britain-based, but eight have their headquarters in Northern Ireland and five are based in Dublin. The five Dublin-based unions have about 19,000 members, which is about 7 per cent. of the total union membership in Northern Ireland. Enforcement of Northern Ireland court judgments in the Republic will be possible when the Republic gives effect to the European convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. In practice, we do not anticipate a particular problem."—[Official Report, 11 May 1987; Vol. 116, c. 142.]
I have a copy of the convention. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us whether it has yet been ratified by the United Kingdom. It is stated in my copy that it has not been. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us what progress has been made towards ratification by the Irish Republic.

Mr. Mallon: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman sees no problem in the enforcement of our High Court judgments against unions whose headquarters are based in the Republic of Ireland. Will he explain how a receiver could be asked to operate within such a union and how funds could be sequestrated on the basis of a decision of the Northern Ireland High Court if the headquarters are in the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. Beggs: The hon. Gentleman has asked an interesting question which I think would be answered much more easily by the Minister when he replies.
I pay tribute to Northern Ireland trade unions for their courageous public opposition to terrorism and their support for the rights of workers in Ulster irrespective of their religious background. Those workers should have the right to life and the right to work. The vast majority of trade unionists have fostered good working relationships in industry and commerce throughout the troubles. They have helped to maintain harmony in the workplace in the face of sectarian paramilitary assaults and intimidation. Trade unionists in Northern Ireland have acted responsibly in the past. Trade union officials deserve credit for the part that they have played in securing industrial peace in Northern Ireland. The common sense of Ulster folk, including trade union officials, will prevent industrial

strife in future and help to encourage new investment to provide employment opportunities that can be shared by all sections of the community.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: One of the problems of this debate is that we are in danger of shooting the messenger rather than rejecting the message. I must express my admiration for the Minister's work overseas, in the face of great difficulties, in trying to attract inward investment to the north of Ireland.
Reference has been made to the Industrial Development Board figures that were released today, although no one knows whether they present the entire picture. Irrespective of the figures, we must pay tribute to the Minister for his efforts. He does a difficult job in the current circumstances and it should not go unremarked—especially as I intend to oppose the order. I do not attack the messenger—and I do not mean that in any disparaging sense—only the message.
There must be something remarkably perverse about a Government who, in a place such as Northern Ireland that has so many problems, tamper with the very things that are working. We had an education system that had served the north of Ireland extremely well, but the Government introduced root and branch reforms with the result that that which was working extremely well is now in a state of confusion. I am glad to say that it is still working very well, but not as a result of the Government's efforts. Lo and behold, the same now applies to trade union activity and industrial relations in the north of Ireland. They have worked extremely well throughout the years, but they are now being tampered with by the Government. In our debate last week, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) quoted the old American maxim, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Once again with this order, the Government are taking that which is working and doing very well and changing it and creating difficulties.
The order does not meet the pretensions enshrined in its title. It puts into north of Ireland legislation the anti-union, anti-worker programme that the Government have introduced in the remainder of the United Kingdom. It is framed not on the experiences of trade union relations in the north of Ireland, but on the Government's perceptions of the problems of the British economy and of trade union relationships in Great Britain. It could be described as being an ideological hammer to crack one of the few remaining protections for the ordinary working person in the north of Ireland. That is in direct contrast with developments in other EC member states and elsewhere in Europe. The disadvantaged and the weakest sections of the working community, especially part-time workers—who, in the north of Ireland, are almost by definition women—will have their protection substantially weakened by the order. It will not meet the essential need to protect the weakest in society, but it is in line with the Government's refusal to advance workers' rights through the European social chapter.
There is an implication—indeed, I would say even a direct claim—in what the Government are doing that the United Kingdom economy cannot sustain improvements in the rights of the least protected workers. That is an indictment not of the work force, but of the economy that the Government have created and of the Government themselves.


The order does not have its origins in the industrial issues in the north of Ireland. If the Government think that it does, we have a right to know what those issues are. What has caused so much concern that the Government have introduced this order for the north of Ireland? Is it the number of strikes? The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) showed clearly, in the figures that he quoted, that that cannot be so. Is it abuses by the trade unions in the north of Ireland? We could not accept that theory, either. Is it unrest fostered by trade unionism or industrial relations? There is no justification for or evidence of that. Is it violence engendered by industrial unrest? No. None of those stands up. There is no evidence to suggest that there has been a reason within the north of Ireland to introduce such an order; there is only the fact that the Government want to import Great Britain legislation into the north of Ireland, without reference to the potential damage to industrial relations that it might cause.
Earlier, I quoted the words of a previous Minister in charge of economic development, Mr. Adam Butler. It is worth repeating his remarks. He said:
The Province offers industry an industrial relations record equal to those of West Germany and Japan, and the most productive and efficient work force in Europe.
Yet this order is being introduced to deal with that most productive and efficient work force in Europe and with the trade unions in the north of Ireland, which have a record equal to those of west Germany and Japan. I wonder why. Again, empirical evidence has not been presented to show the need for the legislation. It is the Government's ideological craving to impose their will, irrespective of the result.
The IDB also had something interesting to say about trade union relationships in the north of Ireland. In its 1990 document "Forward Strategy", it states:
Northern Ireland companies benefit from many natural advantages—industrial tradition, strong educational base, strong work ethic, effective industrial relations.
That is the system that the Government want to change radically. I ask the Minister to cite the reasons why. What are the industrial relations abuses in the north of Ireland suspected in the past and in the present that have potential for the future and that must be dealt with in such a way? It is only right that we should he given reasons why. We have been given no reasons to date, and I do not believe that we ever will—they do not exist. The Minister cannot give us reasons.
As has been pointed out, there is a contradiction in the application of some of the articles in the order. Many unions operating in the north of Ireland have their headquarters in Great Britain, in the north of Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland. That will lead to an unequal impact when unions have their headquarters in the Republic of Ireland but their membership in the north of Ireland. If there were ever to be the sort of industrial problems in the north of Ireland imagined by the Government—and there has been no evidence of any in the past—the order would lead to administrative and legislative confusion. An example would be in the election of senior executive officers. How could the union election provisions under part VII of the order apply to a union based in the Republic of Ireland but with its membership
I do not believe, as the hon. Member for Antrim, East said, that that problem could be dealt with easily. We are

all aware of the difficulties in the harmonisation of legislation north and south of the border. We know how long that takes. I wonder why there was not some effort made to reach harmonisation with the Republic of Ireland for this order, so that there would be at least a basis for equality and a common approach. Perhaps that was too difficult or just not possible, but at least we have a right to question whether it was tried.
I am astounded by the way in which the rights of workers within the system in the north of Ireland are treated so shabbily in the order. I refer first to the workers in firms with fewer than 20 employees.
They will have no right to know the disciplinary procedures that will apply to them, even in the event of dismissal. In a situation in which there is religious discrimination and political and sectarian tensions in the workplace, it would strengthen the position of both employers and employees for the latter to know the disciplinary procedures.
Those who have given less than two years' service will have no right to know the reason for their dismissal, which could have serious consequences. Workers whose employment ceases through no fault of their own will find that their social security benefits are affected. An individual having less than two years' service in a company might be disqualified from social security benefits simply because he or she is not able to give the reason for dismissal.
Natural justice also demands that someone who is dismissed from employment should know the reason. Anyone working for a firm having 20 or fewer employees has a right to that information, yet the order will deny that right.
If a dismissed person wants to bring his case before an industrial tribunal he will be required to make a payment of £150. There are provisions to award costs against those who bring frivolous or fallacious claims. If the unemployed are to seek any redress at an industrial tribunal, they will he expected to find a large sum of money out of their own pockets. That is unacceptable, especially in respect of people who are at their most vulnerable. Having been dismissed, they may then discover that they are unable to pursue their rightful case because they lack the necessary cash.
Already, people who bring successful cases before an industrial tribunal cannot be reinstated, and the amount of compensation is ridiculously inadequate. Added disadvantages are being heaped upon them.
The certification officer will in effect be attached to the Labour Relations Agency. That is a bad mistake. There will inevitably be a clash of interests, because the officer's quasi-judicial function will conflict with the agency's neutrality and independence. The officer will be required to adjudicate against the interests of trade unions while being part of the Labour Relations Agency. The officer is given both an adversarial and conciliatory role.
I touched earlier on the difficulties that will arise where unions have their headquarters in the Republic. It is a matter of regret that there is no reciprocity with the Registrar of Friendly Societies in the Republic. There should be mutual recognition, or some common form of registration, so that the problems that will otherwise arise can be avoided.
Similar problems will arise in respect of articles 7,8, and 9 as they apply to property, trusteeship, and indemnification. The order does not, and cannot, differentiate between


property, assets, and funds in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. How can the Northern Ireland High Court appoint a receiver to investigate the affairs of a union whose headquarters are based in the Republic? How could the court sequester the union's assets, or remove its trustees? That provision will present practical and legal problems—that is, if there is any need to implement the order. If there is no need, one questions the purpose of the measure.
The order will make it difficult to take action against members who ignore the democratic decisions of the majority of their colleagues. That right exists in any organisation. I remind the Minister that his own party exercised that right recently in relation to a member who was deemed to be guilty of making racist remarks about others. The same can happen in any political party, because the Whip system is so strong—and rightly—that people have to answer to their colleagues. Yet the order substantially reduces that right in respect of trade unions. We should compare that with our own situation, to see to what extent it is justified.
Where something is working, it is foolhardy to tamper with it, without any guarantee that the working of the organisation will be improved. As I said earlier, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Mr. Harry Barnes: The order is being presented at an incredible time. We are two months or less from a general election. Suddenly, measures that have operated for a long time in Great Britain are being brought forward and pushed to Northern Ireland. We are dealing with a measure on industrial relations. It is not the poll tax that Northern Ireland has never had that it is suddently to get in the last rush.
Given that a general election is on the horizon, it would be possible for the Government to present in Northern Ireland, where Conservative candidates are standing, a measure that sought a mandate for these provisions. If they are so good and can he argued for, and if there is the kind of empirical evidence that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) sought, all this could be done in the context of Northern Ireland, so that its views are properly considered within the political process.
There is a great difference between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in many matters, including industrial relations. Unemployment in Northern Ireland is higher than in any region of Great Britain. In those circumstances, the trade unions find difficulty in negotiating, increasing their membership, securing recognition rights, and undertaking the other tasks that they are required to perform in the interests of their members. It is therefore much less likely in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom—although I do not believe that it happens in a wider context—that union members will exhibit any tendency to act as tearaways, to act irresponsibly, striking first and thinking later.
The Minister has advanced no argument for the order, apart from the perceptions of some people overseas in regard to inward investment; he has produced only bland statements, as opposed to the results of detailed investigation revealing the views of potential investors. I doubt very much whether those perceptions exist. It is possible that many assume that the industrial relations

legislation that the Government have introduced to influence their friends overseas already operates in Northern Ireland. Although that does not make it right in a British context, it is unlikely that it is given a second thought—and, if it is not given a second thought, it cannot be used as the linchpin of the argument for the order.
The provisions of the order have been debated at length, at more promising times of day and to a packed House—the principles that affect Great Britain, that is. On this occasion, unfortunately, not many hon. Members are present—even Northern Ireland Members.
As the Minister recognised, the trade union movement in Northern Ireland does a great deal to try to tackle terrorism, and to seek to knit the two communities together. It supports bodies such as Counteract, the anti-intimidation unit sponsored by the Irish Confederation of Trade Unions. The youth section is represented by the "Hands off my mate" campaign.
Such examples illustrate the value of the work of the trade union movement, much of which takes place outside the normal day-to-day negotiation on behalf of union members and has a wider social impact on the situation in Northern Ireland. The order would impose strict controls on what are termed "political objectives", and the expenditure of money on such objectives. Normally, they are tied in with party-political objectives. The order states that, if part of the purpose of funding is to undermine political parties and positions—to persuade people to point in other directions, as it were—that is unacceptable.
How do contributions to Counteract fit in with those provisions? Presumably, the legal interpretation could apply to the political position with which Sinn Fein is associated, or that of the Ulster Defence Association and any body that it might support. A host of problems, many of which have already been mentioned, arise in the order.
Industrial relations reform in Northern Ireland should not be produced as an afterthought to clear the ideological decks before a general election, and to press earlier ill-thought-out measures on the area. It should be given deep and serious consideration: it could well be part of the general election campaign in Northern Ireland. Proper industrial relations reform should be associated with what Northern Ireland needs most to begin to displace those who stand for violence and intimidation.
Massive economic and social regeneration is needed. Any attempt to gain money, here and there, from overseas will do nothing to encourage it, even though that money may be needed. The Government should commit themselves to ensuring that a collective response is adopted towards Northern Ireland so that employment can pick up. Fair employment legislation would then stand a much better chance of succeeding.
The social charter provisions are infinitely more relevant to Northern Ireland than this order, which has been introduced during the final days of a dying Government. That is disgraceful. It runs counter to the Minister's analysis. He had some sound points to make about the trade union movement in Northern Ireland and the work that it does, especially its counter-terrorism work. To pay the trade union movement back in that way is entirely inappropriate.
I was disturbed to hear that the request for a response to the documents that were issued at an earlier stage led to the political parties in Northern Ireland choosing not to respond but to leave it until tonight to make their points. Northern Ireland needs politicians who are very much


aware of the position in which working people, in particular unemployed people, find themselves. The problems that face them have been reflected in the speeches made tonight.

Mr. Mallon: Apart from the points that have been made by the members of the Northern Ireland political parties who are here tonight, does the hon. Gentleman accept that Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland spend more time dealing with the problems faced by their constituents than most politicians anywhere else in the world and that, by the very nature of the problems in Northern Ireland, all Northern Ireland politicians, of whatever party, have that record within Northern Ireland? Is it not very damaging to the political process to use at every opportunity Northern Ireland politicians as whipping boys for the mistakes of other people—in this case for the mistake of introducing this legislation that is not needed?

Mr. Barnes: I grant that Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland have more problems to deal with in their constituencies than do the average representatives from England, Scotland and Wales. Some will deal with them in a valiant and full way. There are disparities between Members of Parliament anywhere.
I am not sure why I am being taken to task. The main thrust of my argument was against the Government's position. I then advanced the argument that it was disappointing that no formal response had been put to the Government, based on earlier documentation. Those political parties that are based in Northern Ireland, that are active in Northern Ireland and that have their roots there depend for their position in Parliament upon the votes of masses of trade unionists and people who formerly were in trade unions but who are now unemployed and desperately in need of their assistance. That does not mean that the efforts of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament are not appreciated.
When I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, I was about to compliment him on the points that he made in his speech that seemed to me to deal with the provisions of the order in a way similar to the way in which they were dealt with previously in the House by Labour Members of Parliament.

Mr. Needham: I have to say to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) that, whatever else may be said of this order, it cannot be said that it has been rushed through. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present when I explained that it had gone out to consultation in September 1990, having been published, I think, in 1988. I always listen to the hon. Gentleman's contributions to these debates, and I always compliment him on the fact that his heart is in the right place. Where his head sometimes takes him I am not quite sure.
The hon. Gentleman talked about massive social and economic regeneration. That is an elegant expression, but what does the hon. Gentleman actually mean by it? Is he suggesting that his party, if it were to get into power, would increase significantly the amount of money that is made available to Northern Ireland? Surely "massive social and economic regeneration" could not be

accomplished by the private sector on its own. I should think that hon. Members on both sides of the House, like all the parties in Northern Ireland, agree about the need for massive social and economic regeneration. That is what we are trying, and have tried for the past 12 or 13 years, to achieve.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East said that the social chapter should be employed in Northern Ireland to create employment. How many additional people does the hon. Gentleman think Harland and Wolff or Machies or Desmonds would take on if the social chapter were introduced in Northern Ireland? The whole point about the social chapter is that, by comparison with the Germans, it would make us less competitive because we shall have to start paying German social costs.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why do the Germans want it?

Mr. Needham: The Germans want us to have it because they know jolly well that it would make it difficult for us to compete with them.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer the question.

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman invervenes, from a sedentary position, in an argument in which, up to now, he has not shown much interest. As I indicated to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, there is no conceivable likelihood of additional jobs arising from the introduction of the social chapter. In fact, the opposite is likely to be the case. Take, for instance, the 48-hour rule. Over the years, that has been adapted by industry in Britain and Northern Ireland to fit certain shift patterns, and in certain industries it gives us an economic advantage. The introduction of this change in a place like Northern Ireland could very well do enormous damage to companies such as Dupont as they compete with their German opposite numbers. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that that step would help to provide employment in Northern Ireland?

Mr. McNamara: Dupont in Germany already operates the 48-hour rule. It is a question of averages over a period of weeks.

Mr. Needham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Northern Ireland desperately needs to be competitive. Anything likely to turn it into a high-cost economy would damage employment prospects.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is a level playing field.

Mr. Needham: In no way can it be considered to be a level playing field if the rules in Germany fit German employment patterns but do not fit ours. Because of the difference in productivity and in the history of investment, our industry would be put at a disadvantage.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) quoted what a predecessor of mine had said in 1982 about our productivity. I do not have my predecessor's words at hand, but, on the recognition issue, I have already accepted what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that the productivity of Northern Ireland industry bears comparison with the productivity of Japan or Germany. I wish that it were so. I wish that we in Northern Ireland had such a rate of productivity. Were it so, we would have a much greater industrial base and would pay much higher wages.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is not as naive as that. He knows as well as I do—even with a gobstopper in his mouth—that the productivity levels in every economic report are not as high as that. That is one of the major reasons why it is crucial that we improve productivity and do not saddle Northern Ireland employers in industry and commerce with costs that they cannot bear if they are to maintain present employment levels.
Part of the strategy that the Government are adopting in Northern Ireland is to try to force those employers towards achieving higher productivity and greater competitiveness. I am glad to say that all the Northern Ireland Members have a large measure of support for that policy. If the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East has had time to read the economic strategy that I have proposed, I do not think that even he would have much difficulty in following it.

Mr. McNamara: The Minister says that he wants greater productivity and higher investment. How will low wages affect those two issues? On the basis of his argument, we shall pay people in Northern Ireland less and less.

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman turns every argument on its head. We have to achieve higher investment and productivity over a period of years in Northern Ireland. That will not be achieved by saddling employers in Northern Ireland with a series of straitjackets, with respect to either industrial relations or the social charter.

Mr. McNamara: Rubbish.

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish", but he proposes a national minimum wage for Northern Ireland. The Department of the Environment and a range of economists who have studied the figures know perfectly well that that policy will create massive unemployment among women workers in Northern Ireland. It is estimated that between 25,000 and 50,000 women in Northern Ireland stand to lose their jobs due to the introduction of a national minimum wage, which is based, not on wage rates in Northern Ireland, but on wage rates throughout the country.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is not in the social charter.

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman, who continues to contribute from a sedentary position, says that that policy is not in the social charter. Indeed it is not, which makes it doubly dreadful. We would have to contend not only with the social chapter mentioned by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, but with a minimum wage, which would have a devastating impact on Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara: Precisely how does the Minister arrive at his figures 25,000 to 50,000 people—mainly women—who will lose their jobs in Northern Ireland? Who will do their jobs if they do not? Does he not know that the social charter will give benefits, not on the two-year qualification basis that he wants, but to all workers at all times and will seek to stop the exploitation of low-paid workers, particularly women, in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Needham: Nobody wants to exploit women working in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman's form of exploitation is to put them out of work. I shall state

clearly how that would happen. It is no good the hon. Gentleman smiling at his hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
Northern Ireland women work largely in the garment industry, which has to compete not with German textiles or French textiles, but with imports from all over the world. Over a period of years, the garment industry in Northern Ireland will have to adapt and increase its productivity and investment to try to ensure that it can compete.
If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) proposes to introduce a national minimum wage based on £3·40 an hour—the 50 per cent. he mentioned—immediately the Labour party comes into office, I shall be perfectly happy to take him to any number of employers in Northern Ireland. In fact, I shall ensure that they write to him in the next few weeks and give him details of the problems that his policy will create for them.

Mr. Mallon: I agree with the Minister about productivity, but to use an analogy, at one time chimney sweeps who did not put little boys up chimneys did not have the same productivity rate as those who did, but that changed. Is not the basic flaw in the Minister's argument that, although productivity can be kept high by paying people peanuts, that is not the point? We must promote high productivity while paying people a just and fair wage.

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is a limit to the wages that an employer can afford to pay, in terms of the products that he manufactures. The hon. Gentleman says rightly that none of us wants a low-wage economy, and that we want to move to higher productivity and to different sorts of products. The hon. Gentleman knows that that takes time. If he wants to protect those who are on low wages, he should follow the routes that all Governments since the war have followed—either the taxation route or the introduction of measures such as family credit. If the hon. Gentleman considers the profits of companies in his constituency or the profits of companies in Northern Ireland generally, he cannot suggest that the only people who should pay are the employers. The employers are not making the profits to do so. If the employers were asked to pay and could not, they would go out of business, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and their customers would buy elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North came out with a panoply of measures which I have never heard from him before. I should be interested to know how much they would cost and I hope that he will keep them to himself. If he starts to publicise the brave new world that he hopes to foist on the economy of Northern Ireland, it will not be a question of the Industrial Development Board announcing 44,000 new jobs a year. It will be a question of it announcing 44,000 losses, because it will be impossible to bring inward investment to Northern Ireland, in contrast to the south.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh asked about the south and made a perfectly fair point. Only 10 per cent. of trade union members in Northern Ireland are members of trade unions from the south. Some 80 per cent. are Great Britain affiliated. We believe that the trade unions with headquarters in the south will abide by the laws in Northern Ireland. The fact that they are southern unions which operate in Northern Ireland does not mean that we


cannot introduce industrial relations legislation in the north of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman made a point about trying to move closer together on industrial relations law. The legislation in the south which was recently introduced has gone a considerable way towards the proposals that we have introduced in the north.

Mr. McNamara: Is the Minister not aware of the fact that the Government of the Republic, for whom I hold no brief—the Minister, not I, raised the point—have stated that they will implement the social charter? Is the Minister not aware that the Government in the south already give protections, which are so sadly lacking in British legislation, to part-time and women workers?

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman knows full well the position of employment and the conditions of employment in the south. He knows that legislation recently introduced in the south brings it closer to us on industrial relations legislation. If the hon. Gentleman believes for one minute that the Government of the republic will introduce the social charter in ways which would move the republic towards German wage costs and social costs, and which would put even more people in the republic out of work, he lives in an even bigger cloud cuckoo land than I thought he did.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh made a serious point about the security of personnel in relation to the electoral register and to the balloting provisions to take account of union representation. The register of members needs to contain only members' names and an address —not a postal address, but some form of identification address such as a payroll number. We have taken into account the point made by the hon. Member and, with respect, he should perhaps occasionally take into account some of the fears that exist elsewhere in Northern Ireland about the issues raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Moreover, in security-related establishments, the delivery of ballot papers need not be by post.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North suggested that what we proposed was a solution that did not have a problem. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the need for secret ballots before a strike is not a problem or that we should not have elections for union officers? Is he suggesting that closed shops are not a problem? Of course there are problems, and the hon. Gentleman is aware of them. I listened in vain for the hon. Gentleman's proposals on the subject of this order—although I heard an enormous amount about his proposals for increasing unemployment in Northern Ireland.
The order is intended to promote enterprise and industry in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) said, its purpose is to ensure that employers in Northern Ireland can expand, so that we get inward investment, and to ensure a level playing field with other parts of the United Kingdom.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 90, Noes 87.

Division No. 74]
[9.25 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beggs, Roy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bellingham, Henry





Bendall, Vivian
Needham, Richard


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Neubert, Sir Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Bottomley, Peter
Paice, James


Brazier, Julian
Paisley, Rev Ian


Burt, Alistair
Patnick, Irvine


Butler, Chris
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Butterfill, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Carrington, Matthew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Carttiss, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Riddick, Graham


Chope, Christopher
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Sackville, Hon Tom


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Dover, Den
Shelton, Sir William


Dunn, Bob
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fallon, Michael
Speed, Keith


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Stevens, Lewis


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Forth, Eric
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Franks, Cecil
Summerson, Hugo


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


Irvine, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Trimble, David


Kirkhope, Timothy
Walden, George


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ward, John


Knox, David
Warren, Kenneth


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Wheeler, Sir John


Lightbown, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wiggin, Jerry


Maclean, David
Wolfson, Mark


Malins, Humfrey



Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mills, Iain
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. Timothy Boswell.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Grocott, Bruce


Anderson, Donald
Hardy, Peter


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hinchliffe, David


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hood, Jimmy


Battle, John
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Benton, Joseph
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bermingham, Gerald
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Boateng, Paul
Kilfoyle, Peter


Boyes, Roland
Leadbitter, Ted


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lewis, Terry


Caborn, Richard
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Callaghan, Jim
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Loyden, Eddie


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McAllion, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McCartney, Ian


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cousins, Jim
McFall, John


Cryer, Bob
McGrady, Eddie


Cummings, John
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dalyell, Tam
McMaster, Gordon


Dixon, Don
McNamara, Kevin


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Madden, Max


Eadie, Alexander
Mallon, Seamus


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Enright, Derek
Meale, Alan


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Flannery, Martin
Murphy, Paul


Flynn, Paul
O'Brien, William


Foster, Derek
O'Hara, Edward


George, Bruce
O'Neill, Martin


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gordon, Mildred
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Redmond, Martin






Robertson, George
Vaz, Keith


Rogers, Allan
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Rooney, Terence
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wigley, Dafydd


Salmond, Alex
Wilson, Brian


Short, Clare
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Tellers for the Noes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Thomas McAvoy.


Stott, Roger

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved.—[Mr. Needham.]

Orders of the Day — Local Government (Northern Ireland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I beg to move,
That the draft Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.
This is an important piece of legislation for Northern Ireland. Before going into the detail, may I highlight two aspects of it which I feel will lead to a radical improvement in the way in which district councils think and operate in the Province?
The first aspect is competitive tendering. Without doubt that has had the greatest impact in the past decade on the way in which the public sector does its job. We are entitled to demand that the services funded by taxpayers' and ratepayers' money are delivered in the most efficient and effective way. Competitive tendering, in the Government's judgment, achieves that.
The proof of the pudding is, of course, in the eating, but one has only to look at the savings and improvements in the efficiency and quality of services achieved by local authorities in Great Britain across a whole range of services. Liverpool, for example, contracted out its refuse and street cleaning at an estimated saving of £4 million a year. Kensington and Chelsea recorded a saving of £1·6 million. In Northern Ireland, the success of competitive tendering has extended to the health service, where savings of —7·4 million have been achieved; the education boards saved £1·2 million, and indeed the civil service itself saved —5·3 million.
Nor do I accept that competitive tendering reduces a council's powers. What it does is keep the councillor more in touch with the ratepayer rather than defending the actions of the council. That is not compulsory privatisation or compulsory contracting out. Councils retain responsibility for the service, and the order will allow council's direct service organisations to tender for the work. But councils will be required to specify and monitor the standard of service that they require, whether or not the service is provided "in-house" or by contractors. There will be no lessening of standards. In fact, standards should improve, since the inevitable consequence of introducing competition will be to widen the choice of contractors to councils, and that will lead to higher production, better services and lower prices.
There is one further issue on which I should assure the House, as far as competitive tendering is concerned. The Government are conscious of the potential for paramilitary exploitation. Every step will be taken to eliminate that risk, whatever form it takes. In article 21 of the order, additional powers have been taken, over and above those introduced in Great Britain, to allow the Department to specify certain information which a contractor must provide if he wishes to tender. That will be a filtration process and should thwart attempts to win contracts by the paramilitaries posing as bona fide contractors. We are not prepared to see better use of the ratepayers' money put on one side solely because of the threat of fraud, from wherever it comes. If that were to be the case, the whole of Northern Ireland could end up employed in the public sector. There will of course be difficulties in preventing exploitation by the paramilitary organisations and others. However, the Government are determined that they will


not be allowed to muscle in, and because it is difficult to deal with the problem by way of primary legislation, the order also includes an article which gives a general power of direction over councils. This is an additional safeguard and will be used to take immediate steps to combat any paramilitary threat should it arise.
An equally important provision in the order is the proposal to allow the product of a 2p rate on the promotion of economic development. Nothing can be more frustrating for the many able councillors in Northern Ireland than for them to find that, under the present restrictions within the powers of local government, they can do so little to improve their areas.
There has been an immense change since I first became Minister with responsibility for local government some six and a half years ago in the number of councils and councillors now working cross-community in the interests of all. Dungannon, Londonderry, Foyle, Ballymoney, Lisburn, Banbridge, Fermanagh, Newry, Armagh, Downpatrick, Omagh, Strabane, to name but some, have set up imaginative and professional ways of promoting their areas. Even Belfast and Cookstown seem, at last, set to follow. The Tyrone economic development initiative and the Brownlow trust are examples of councils, jointly or individually, fully playing their part.
I want to see that grow and expand and I am only too happy to give councils an incentive to use all their talents in bringing pride and employment back to their districts. In the historic towns of Carrickfergus, Armagh and Downpatrick we have arranged a partnership between the Department of the Environment and the district council, where the Department of the Environment provides a town planner to provide the physical development and the conservation elements, and the council provides the administrative back up. Initiatives are channelled through a board, which is made up of elected representatives and officials of both councils and the Department of the Environment. That has proved to be a great success, attracting both commitment and development on the ground.
The order is also important because it sets out standards of behaviour and conduct for councillors. An updated code of local government conduct will be introduced after full consultation with district councils.
It is also important for councils to have clear and effective working arrangements. Those arrangements should be covered by standing orders, but unfortunately not all councils have them. Over time some standing orders have fallen out of use and are no longer effective. Article 33 of the order will allow the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to introduce a revised set of standing orders, which allow for a statutory core for councils to follow. That provides a better framework so that business can be carried out fairly and reasonably, and in a way which reflects the interests of all members of the council. That provision will not be introduced until there has been full consultation.
No changes in the administration of the building control and environmental health services will take place until value-for-money studies are completed. If any changes are proposed councils will be fully consulted about the new arrangements.
There has been a considerable debate in the past about the way in which vacancies in district councils have been advertised. So the order strengthens the role of the local government staff commission and ensures that job vacancies are more widely canvassed. There is, of course, no intention to curtail the career opportunities of existing staff.
Finally, the local government auditor is given extra powers to prevent district councils from incurring unlawful expenditure and allows them to stop councils spending money on political publicity.
In conclusion, I believe that the order will not only ensure that local government spends its money more carefully and efficiently, but that it will lead to better services for the public. I also believe that the order will improve the working relationships within councils and the standing of councils by making their commercial and political behaviour more open to public view. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Roger Stott: The Minister and I seem to have drawn the short straw of being here, yet again, late—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Late?

Mr. Stott: Well, latish on a Monday night, for the third week running.
I recognise that most of the hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland have been or still are serving members of city councils or district councils. I will restrict my remarks in order to allow them to bring to bear their personal experiences in this short debate, which affects the services provided by local government to the people of Northern Ireland.
The order is rather like the curate's egg. It is good in parts—and where it is good, it is welcome. Where it is bad, it is bad. It is my considered view that the Government have missed an opportunity to conduct a fundamental review of the nature and purpose of local government in Northern Ireland—something which I am doing on behalf of the Labour party. The Government are attempting to ride two horses at once. They are attempting to deprive local authorities of their extremely limited powers to provide services, while also attempting to promote a greater sense of responsibility in local councillors.
Part II of the order deals with competitive tendering, but I did not hear the Minister once use the phrase "compulsory competitive tendering". Let us not make any bones or have any dubiety about it: this is another example of the importation of failed English dogma into Northern Ireland. As I said to the hon. Members who represent the Province when we debated the Northern Ireland electricity order, why should we look into the crystal ball when we can read the book? We only have to consider what has happened on the mainland to see what compulsory competitive tendering has done.
I shall cite one or two examples. In my local authority, a group of its employees won the tender from the authority to administer and mow all public places, including public parks. As the Minister will know, I am an aging cricketer and during the summer I play cricket in a public park in Wigan. Unfortunately, those who won the tender to cut


the grass and mow the strip did not take away the grass cuttings from the playing surface, which prevented every stroke I made from going for four.
The other example does not relate particularly to local government. The window cleaning service in the House of Commons has been privatised, but one of the employees was not vetted by the company that won the contract and he was charged by the police for stealing from Members' offices, and subsequently released. That is the kind of thing that tends to happen when public services are privatised.
There is something offensive about a group of well-paid individuals, such as Members of Parliament, sitting here to decide on lowering the living standards of some of the worst paid sections of the community. That is what CCT means—low pay and local authority workers being even more exploited than they already are.
Furthermore, CCT means not only a diminution in living standards for the local authority worker but a reduction in services for everyone. In the context of the eventual viability and effectiveness of local democracy in Northern Ireland, limiting the powers of local authorities to decide how they should provide services is singularly short sighted. Removing from local authorities the responsibility to provide services in the manner that they feel most appropriate is particularly inappropriate in Northern Ireland.
I recall that John Banham, the former controller of the Audit Commission and now director-general of the CBI, said in 1985:
Privatisation is the last resort of a management that has given up.
We support that view, for the Government have made competitive tendering compulsory because of their obsession with privatisation, no matter what harm it does to services, consumers and employees. The consumer has suffered under the Government's "cheapest is best" tendering rules. Contractors and councillors alike agree that, by cutting job security, wages and conditions of service, the Government are undermining long-term means of achieving quality of service. The Minister may appear before us in suit arid tie, but underneath he still wears the uniform of a district commissioner.
As I normally do in these debates, I have found something good to say about the Under-Secretary. I commend him on the one concession to reality that he has made since he issued the consultative document. We welcome the decision to include fair employment considerations in the factors that can be taken into account when agreeing contracts. It would be helpful if the Minister could state whether local authorities will have a statutory duty to take fair employment into consideration when deciding those contracts.
I also commend the Minister for articles 26, 27 and 28. We hope that local authorities will take up the opportunity of promoting economic development in their own areas allowed for in article 28, no matter how limited that provision is.
We approach part V with mixed feelings. While we recognise the importance of establishing minimum democratic standards in local government, we are disappointed that the Government have not done more to promote the best practices seen in councils such as Dungannon and Derry, among the others that the Minister mentioned. I would be interested if the Minister fleshed out some of that thinking. I am referring to power sharing and minority rights.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Is that done over here?

Mr. David Trimble: The Labour party should practise what the hon. Gentleman preaches.

Mr. Stott: I hear sedentary voices. If hon. Members wish to intervene, I shall give way.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: What hon. Members mean is that, in Great Britain, only hung councils work together and share power. It is another example of Great Britain asking Northern Ireland to do something that we do not do here.

Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman does me a disservice. He thinks that I am not acquainted with local government in Northern Ireland or in this country. In the rest of the United Kingdom, power is devolved to local authorities and the leadership of those authorities is determined not on sectarian but on political lines. What I am saying is what the Minister has already said. Some district councils in Northern Ireland work together for the betterment of their people, unlike certain city councils—which I shall not mention by name, although I am sure that hon. Members know them—which resort to a talking and shouting shop. No power can be given to them unless they get their act together.
Article 38 causes us concern—

Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the sort of shouting in which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was engaging a short while ago, so much so that he lost the track of what he was saying in his attack on the Minister? Will he admonish his hon. Friend if he is against shouting in debating chambers?
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the ballot box that operates on this side of the Irish sea operates also in Northern Ireland. The same considerations pertain in Northern Ireland. People vote for those parties whose views are most closely associated with their own. The same democratic institutions that provide people to serve in local government in Northern Ireland provide for the rest of the United Kingdom. If it is right in the rest of the United Kingdom for those who can form a majority in a council to go ahead and run that council, it should be right for that to happen in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman has his point of view and I have mine. All we have to do is see what happens in local government in Northern Ireland. It would be my earnest intent and my hope that the House would devolve as much power as it could to local government in Northern Ireland. It is not possible to do that at present for the very reasons of which the hon. Gentleman is well aware. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) advanced his argument forcefully. Indeed, it seems that he was so forceful on fair employment that he drove the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and some other hon. Members to join the Tories in their Lobby to vote against fair employment in Northern Ireland. I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, East remembers that.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what his attitude would be if his brother were murdered and in the council of which he was a


member the Sinn Fein-IRA representatives praised the murderers and refused to stand as a mark of respect or to take part in any act of condolence? Would he shout in those circumstances?

Mr. Stott: I would hope that in those circumstances, which would be extremely trying and provocative, I would retain the dignity of an elected representative. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about Sinn Fein. My party has always said that it will not negotiate with Sinn Fein as long as it maintains contact with the IRA. The hon. Gentleman knows that.
As I have said, article 38 causes us some concern. There must be some supervision of local authorities to make sure that they do not exceed their rightful powers, but that is not to say that auditors should have the right to step in and pre-empt a decision as the prohibition order in article 38 would permit. It is a Napoleonic practice of the prefectural veto, which has no place in modern democracy.
We welcome article 41 and the prohibition of political publicity. Too much time and effort has been wasted on this issue in recent years and we look forward to the day when every local authority in Northern Ireland will be seen as a representative of the community which it exists to serve. If the article were applied to the Prime Minister and the Treasury in terms of the citizens charter, perhaps it would not have been introduced. On the whole, the order is good. It is good in parts and bad in others. If a Division is called, my hon. Friends and I may vote against it.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: 1 thank the Minister for the consultation that took place before the presentation of the order and for his responses to our many submissions, which clarified certain matters.
As others have said, the order is to be both welcomed and rejected. It is probably fair to say that it is one of the most far-reaching and fundamental changes in local government since 1973.
My party welcomes the proposals that deal with the new code of conduct and practice for councils and those that enable councils to engage in job promotion activities in their own localities. We are disappointed with the ideological transfer of the compulsory competitive tendering provisions from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Earlier this evening, the Minister referred to parity. There is no parity in the CCT provisions because local government in Northern Ireland does not have power over housing, education, health, social security, libraries, planning, water, roads, sewerage and so on. The CCT provisions will focus on a relatively small range of council functions, but that point has been missed entirely.
As a consequence, it is not inconceivable that the calibre of those wanting to represent their communities in a council chamber will be considerably diminished in quality if not in number. It is the duty of a local council, which is close to its community—especially in the context of the restrictive powers in Northern Ireland—to provide the services scheduled under the order for CCT. We accept that when the order is passed tonight, that will happen.
In each of the last three Northern Ireland debates, the Minister used the term "level playing field". If a different level playing field is to be applied to CCT, we should be comparing like with like. The guiding principle should be

real competitive tendering. My party suggested to the Minister—although he did not take it on board, which is not unusual—that certain requirements should precede CCT. First, there should be a fair rate structure for employees and the maintenance of wages comparable with those already being paid to local authority employees. Secondly, there should be the proper provision of social security, sickness benefits and pensions to bind the outside employers to the employees. Thirdly, there should be appropriate and decent security of tenure of job—something that is not evident in the Southern health board, to which the Minister referred.
Fourthly, there should be full compliance with health and safety regulations. Fifthly, there should be real and full compliance with the requirements of the fair employment legislation. Sixthly—something that cannot be legislated for, but which will be omitted in the new regime—is the need for the maintenance and possible expansion of employment opportunities for local people resident in the district council areas. Our experience is that many district councils are major job providers. Work could be taken outside their areas, which would dramatically affect local economies.
Seventhly, and by no means least, there should be a guaranteed service by the potential outside contractor for a minimum of four years. That is the lifetime of a council. It would ensure that an outside contractor with a low bid in the initial stages, which wiped out other bidders and the ability of the council to employ its in-house work force, could not hold councils to ransom in the ensuing years. Those are the minimum requirements for the "level playing field" that the Minister said would be appropriate.
As to article 4(2), it is unwarranted for the Department to take upon itself unlimited powers in defining the work that should be subject to compulsory competitive tendering by way of an affirmative resolution. That unbridled power is totally unjustified in any reasonable democratic society.
Article 4(3) says that before an order by affirmative resolution is made,
the Department shall consult such councils, such associations or bodies representative of councils and such other associations or public bodies, as appear to the Department to be desirable".
In some circumstances, it would be desirable to consult a group within a council in order to hear balanced arguments for and against the extension of CCT.
As to articles 5, 8 and 13, I thank the Minister for responding to our strong representations for broader publication of details of the work for which tenders are invited.
In his opening remarks, the Minister said building control and environmental health services required further investigative consideration. I ask him to speed that process, because there is dissatisfaction and unrest among the employees of both the environmental health and building control groups, in the light of current uncertainty.
The extension of council interests into home safety is useful and appropriate for a local community. Councils will also be permitted at long last to become involved in industrial promotion, albeit that many district councils have already done so. However, I enter one caveat. I hope that the new power, which I know will be widely and sensibly used to great effect, will not be viewed as a substitute for the drive and initiative required from a central Government organisation such as the Industrial


Development Board or Local Enterprise Development Unit, and that there will be at least a partnership between them. Earlier tonight, we heard of the difficulties confronting the 1DB. It would be easy in certain circumstances for that board to stand aside.
We welcome also the code of local government conduct and model standing orders, for which we pressed Ministers and the Department for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) spoke of the need to control conduct in council chambers. I spent 32 years in local government, in the old dispensation before 1973, and in the new regime after that, and am aware of the need for adequate standing orders that safeguard the rights of all elected members. If they have followed the democratic process, and are duly elected to represent a section of the community, then whether or not I agree with them, they have a right to represent in the council chamber those who elected them.
There is ample evidence that a code of conduct and model standing orders should be implemented in the flagship of Northern Ireland local government—that is, the chamber of Belfast corporation—as soon as possible.
I am, however, disappointed that the order does not take an obvious further step and make provision, within standing orders, for the definition of a quorum of the council or for the composition of sub-committees of the council so that a cross-section of councils could be represented in the chamber—or, indeed, for a quorum of the sub-committees. The Minister may say that it is impossible to legislate for such matters; let me remind him that councils are elected according to proportional representation. Electoral law suggests that the composition of a council should reflect that of the community. Why should not the code of conduct and standing orders within a council chamber insist, on a legal basis, that the political composition of the council is reflected—again, on the basis of proportional representation?
Let me draw the Minister's attention to article 5/54 of the Widdicombe report, which states that
local authorities should be statutorily required to include provision in their standing orders governing the composition of committees and sub committees with delegated powers to take decisions on behalf of the council. These provisions should provide:

1. for the composition of such committees and sub committees to reflect as far as practicable, the composition of the council as a whole except, in so far as individual parties or councillors might waive their rights".

We are disappointed that the Minister has not chosen to legislate in that regard.
I find it totally unacceptable that, after nearly three years—or four years, if we include the lead-up period—the local government staff commission on fair employment principles, which is supposed to be the watchdog for local government appointments in Northern Ireland, has not yet been able to formulate a code of practice for itself, although the law requiring it to do so was passed in 1989. We were promised that such a report would be published in September 1991, and would be available; we are now promised that it will be available in April 1992. The Minister must agree that that is an unconscionable time for such an important matter to be left hanging.
Finally, I wish to raise the question of political publicity. Other hon. Members have welcomed this aspect of the order, but it contains one glaring defect. I shall not go into the details and quote article by article; let me

simply say that the prohibition affecting publishing and publicising has been withdrawn from the original draft, and we find that very puzzling.
I assume that my interpretation is correct. If not. I hope that the Minister will correct me. I understand that it will still be permissible for a council to place a banner outside its offices reading "Ulster says no", with or without planning permission, if the council itself did not pay for it. What I find especially puzzling and suspect is the fact that that appeared to be in the original draft, but is not in the order with which we are dealing.
Do we understand that the use of ratepayers' funds is prohibited—quite correctly—for the furtherance of party-political objectives, but that the council can erect banners, for instance, without any recourse to law?
I can refer the Minister to many instances throughout the country in which planning laws have been contravened. I am talking not only about the contravention of planning regulations in connection with certain party-political objectives, but about the erection of emblems, signs and flags representing proscribed organisations which have never been removed by either councils or the Department of the Environment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to posters put up against the Anglo-Irish Agreement which was rejected overwhelmingly by the electorate in Northern Ireland, when we all resigned our seats and fought. Is it not a fact that the Minister took very firm action against these posters and that he prosecuted as hard as he could? In other words, he put the boot into every council that did this. Then, because it was found that they could put up these posters inside council properties—there was no need for any planning permission—the Minister was outwitted by the sharp Ulster wit of those people who wanted to keep their democracy and their democratic rights. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it would be appropriate for the Minister to erect over Hillsborough, on behalf of the Secretary of State, a great notice saying, "Mr. Brooke says no because he is going to make no changes in security" according to today's News Letter in Belfast?

Mr. McGrady: I do not know whether or not to welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but it is not for me to cast aspersions on the suitability of the Minister, or his ingenuity—ingenuity which originally came from my part of Northern Ireland, South Down. I should be indulging in self-criticism if I engaged in such an exercise. I agree, however, that there was a certain reticence in applying the planning laws to the taking down of political posters from the city hall and elsewhere. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) acquiesces to the breaking of the planning laws, but that is a problem for him, not for me.
I thank the Minister for the dialogue that we have had with him over the last couple of years and for his sympathetic hearing, if not total acceptance of what we suggested to him. The order contains pluses and minuses, but I think that in totality local democracy in Northern Ireland will take a severe knock when the order comes into effect. Compulsory competitive tendering will sound the death knell of local government as we know it today. It cannot survive if all the services to which the order refers


are given to outside contractors. The council chamber will then become a hollow shell. All services will be provided on an agency basis.
As for the need for financial efficiency and value for money, the hon. Member for Wigan referred to the low-wage syndrome that compulsory competitive tendering will create. One has to ask what will then happen. Low wages will have to be topped up by means of family credit and social security benefits. In the end, no savings will be made. People will have to work hard for a low wage. They will lose the dignity of being able to provide for their families through the sweat of their brows. To get people to work for a low wage so that then they have to tramp to social security means that they have to put out the begging bowl for that which is necessary to sustain a minimum standard of living. At the same time they are driven into —something which I thought was anathema to a Tory Government—the dependency culture, which is totally unnecessary and unwarranted.
Local government in Northern Ireland does not want to ride on the backs of its own ratepayers and of its own community—people on low wages. We know that we can get good services, efficiency and value for money within council chambers by judicial administration. We do not need compulsory competitive tendering to be imposed upon us. It is an ideological transfer of Tory dogma from one regime in Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The cap simply will not fit.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has said about compulsory competitive tendering. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman missed the mark somewhat when he suggested that CCT would remove any meaningful local government. The truth is that Northern Ireland has not had meaningful local government since its council system was destroyed in the early 1970s.
However, it is worth putting on record the fact that local authorities in Northern Ireland have relatively few powers. They have the right to decide on what day the bins should be emptied; to decide the opening hours of cemeteries; to say what community facilities should be provided in their areas and to pay for them; and to determine what recreational facilities should be made available. But, unlike councils in the rest of the United Kingdom, they do not have authority in respect of housing, health, education, planning and many other such matters. So far as those functions are concerned, Northern Ireland councils have simply a consultative role. Thus the Minister has missed a great opportunity for a much more wide-ranging review of the entire local government scene. He could have put forward proposals to make local government much more meaningful.

Mr. McGrady: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the major functions of local government were transferred to central Departments in 1972 and 1973 mainly because of the way in which those powers had been misused? Let the hon. Gentleman refer to the report of the Widgery tribunal, which investigated the causes of the civil unrest in

Northern Ireland. If he does so, he will find that seven of the 11 causes were directly attributable to the activities of local authorities at that time.

Mr. Robinson: I am aware of a number of Roman Catholic councils that discriminated against their Protestant ratepayers, but I do not think that that is why these changes were introduced. They were recommended in the Macrory report, which recognised that there should be a central assembly or parliament to take over many of the powers that had been exercised by the councils. Unfortunately, with the removal of regional government, Northern Ireland was left with what has been called the Macrory gap. Westminster's authority is exercised by the Secretary of State and his Ministers, who do not receive any votes in Northern Ireland. Indeed, when their party puts forward its candidates in the forthcoming election those people are unlikely to get many votes. Even if the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) were to join the East Belfast Conservatives they would hardly be able to storm the ballot. I do not expect that the Conservative party will ever receive any meaningful ballot-box support in Northern Ireland.
By and large, the gap that has been left—this is the area in which the Secretary of State and his Ministers operate—could be better filled. Many of the powers exercised by Ministers or by quangos could be given to local authorities in the Province. I wish that in this order the Minister had addressed that matter.
The compulsory nature of the competitive tendering that the Minister proposes has been referred to. It is precisely the compulsory nature of the tendering to which I object. Like the Minister, I believe that competitive tendering could be to the advantage of ratepayers throughout Northern Ireland, but I believe that it could be advantageous without being compulsory. My district council in Castlereagh already puts many functions out to competitive tender. Indeed, that will be expanded in the coming year. In short, the Minister did not need to nudge us in this direction. I hope that the Minister realises that I do not take issue with him about the advantage that can be derived from competitive tendering.

Mr. Needham: If all councils had been like that of the hon. Gentleman, there would be no need to make it compulsory.

Mr. Robinson: If they had been like my council, they could have had the low rates that my council ratepayers enjoy.
The compulsory nature of the policy will be of concern to residents and will make it difficult for proper competitive tendering.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Gentleman offer guidance to the House and the Department as to how Castlereagh managed to ensure that those firms using competitive tendering did not employ people claiming to be unemployed and receiving social security? The Minister could perhaps share that information with his colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Services, who employ people who are paid by the state and are also involved in the competitive tendering process.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman has raised an issue that requires me to be candid. There have been negative as well as positive elements to our experience. On the negative


side, as a matter of principle our council has always asked the Department of Health and Social Service to ensure that those working on our facilities are properly registered with the Department and not—as it is referred to in Northern Ireland and elsewhere—doing the double. There have been many instances where people who have been working on council property have disappeared after investigations, precisely because they were on the double and their employer was willing to take advantage of that.
I shall relate another negative experience and ask the Minister if he can give some guidance on what to do in such circumstances. What happens when a council goes out to tender, takes the contract that costs the least and finds, once the contract has begun, that the tenderer is not living up to his or her claims, but it is not legally possible to terminate the contract or to require the tenderer to meet what the council considers to be the conditions of the contract? Does the council have to put up with the poorer service provided for the duration of the contract?
Before someone is actually doing the work, it is difficult to determine how good a job he or she will do. One can find oneself tied fast to a contract on which there is no flexibility or manoeuvrability by the tenderer as to what he or she is prepared to do. Usually, to improve the service to the necessary standard, the contractor has to take on a supplementary tender and copper-fasten the original tender, which will cost more. The contractor then faces a dilemma. He has paid more than the original tenderer suggested. He would perhaps have been better off accepting a tender from a company submitting a bid higher than the original tender, as that would have cost less than the total sum charged by the original tenderer plus the supplementary tender.
I do not know whether I have explained that complex position properly, but we have experienced such problems. It is not good enough to say that one has to be careful when choosing a tender, as we face circumstances in the next two or three decades that might be impossible to contemplate.
I think that the Minister missed opportunities and ducked his responsibilities on the issues of building control and environmental health. My council in Castlereagh is a member of a group and has as its partners councils in Lisburn, in Ards and in North Down, and Down district council for which the hon. Member for South Down has such affection. In terms of environmental health, my council acts as the employer council. In terms of building control, Down district council acts as the employer council.
As my council is prudent, the costs of administration for environmental health are probably about half the costs for building control. My council, therefore, has to pay additional administrative costs because of the poor housekeeping of the hon. Gentleman's council. In this financial year, while there is a small increase, probably even less than inflation, for environmental health administration, there is a 28 per cent. increase in terms of building control. The Minister will not be surprised to know that it is hard for my councillors in Castlereagh to swallow the fact that they have to look carefully at their budgets in every department and that they have been careful, to the extent that they have been successful in reducing the rates, when the people in Down spend our money as if there was no tomorrow.

Mr. Needham: That is exactly why we are undertaking the value-for-money studies. I have no doubt that as soon as they come out the hon. Gentleman's council will come very high on the list.

Mr. Robinson: I can confirm that the council will come high on the list. In every value-for-money study that has been carried out in insurances and in recreation, we have come top of the list. I should have thought that the answer for the Minister in terms of building control would be to allow the councils to be directly responsible without having the group committees. They would then have directly within their own responsibility the building control authorities. I accept that there are advantges in certain circumstances in councils joining together to consider certain areas of expertise in building control and in environmental health, but my suggestion of district councils being responsible for building control does not stop one council employing an expert in one area of building control and allowing that person to be used in other areas for a fee.

Mr. McGrady: Lest the House be misled by the hon. Gentleman's ingenuous remarks, I must point out that the budgets for building control and environmental health are fixed by the committees and not by the councils. The sharing out of the cake to district councils comes from the budgets fixed by the group committee.

Mr. Robinson: That does not take anything away from my argument. It has taken the hon. Gentleman 10 minutes from when I made the remark until now to think of an answer to my proposition. It is the cost of the administration which is relevant. Two Castlereagh councillors, two Lisburn councillors and two Ards councillors on a group that is administered by Down cannot tell Down that it has to change its whole council structure. The hon. Gentleman has an administration in Down and runs it in a way that is more costly than that in other areas. We can leave Down, although I ask the Minister to ensure that councils that are careful and prudent are not punished by the action of those who are imprudent and wasteful.
I also ask the Minister to consider the operation of the order. He may be able to give us guidance about how it will all get off the ground. I recognise that the Minister has outlined the areas in which it would be necessary for compulsory competitive tendering to take place and I understand that the councils will have certain responsibilities in terms of putting an advertisement in the local papers and in the technical journals to invite people to show an interest in putting in a bid.
That requires councils to undertake some detailed and lengthy work in preparing specifications for every aspect of their responsibilities. The lengthy nature of that work leads me to ask the Minister at what point he intends to stipulate that the councils should start compulsory competitive tendering. At this stage, we in local government are preparing our estimates for the next 12 months. Once those estimates are cast, they cannot be changed, because of compulsory competitive tendering: we have set our course for the next 12 months, which takes us into 1993. How will the order fit into local government's estimates, and how will it be implemented in terms of the amount of work that has to be done in preparing specifications?

Mr. Needham: We will introduce draft regulations about the timing later in the year, and we shall want to discuss with the councils when they will come into effect.

Mr. Robinson: I hope that I am not reading too much into the Minister's remarks. I understand him to be saying that the decision will not be an immediate decision affecting the next financial year, and that the councils will have the whole financial year in which to prepare specifications and prepare themselves for CCT.
That leads me to the next problem that councils will face. Councils are required in law, before 15 February each year, to prepare their estimates for the coming year. It will be a guessing game for any district council to determine what its rate is likely to be after the CCT process begins. I do not believe that any of us could evaluate the amount that any tenderer will specify in his proposals. I assume, therefore, that the next estimates will be based on what it would cost the council to do that work, so that if the council's direct labour force is outbid a net profit will accrue to the council in respect of that work over that financial year. If that is not the way in which the matter is to be dealt with, I shall be interested to hear.
Let me deal with some of the additional matters included in the order—first, with section 115 of the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 1972, as amended by the order. That section deals with the amount of money that councils can use for matters which, until the order was introduced, would have been to the benefit of all or part of the council area or to all or some of the ratepayers in that area. The wording has now been changed, and the proposed new subsection contains the words:
unless the direct benefit accruing to its district or any part of its district or to the inhabitants of its district or any part of its district will be commensurate with the payments to be made.
I do not understand how that is to be assessed and judged and by whom, or exactly what the use of the word "commensurate" is intended to convey. What the district council may believe is good value for the half penny that it uses for a particular purpose in its area may not be deemed by the local government auditor or the courts as "commensurate" with the payments made. Perhaps the Minister will say—before some councils get themselves into trouble and face surcharges—exactly what the effect of the provision will be.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) did not intend to convey the impression that those of us listening to his speech formed. He seemed to be talking in very negative terms about those involved in local government in Northern Ireland. I am sure that he would accept that the vast majority of the people in local government in Northern Ireland are very dedicated people who carry out a thankless task in a sensible and diligent way. To suggest that they are elected in some sectarian head count and that they should be treated in a less acceptable fashion than elected representatives on this side of the Irish sea is unfair and a slight on the people involved, in whatever party, in local government in Northern Ireland.
I suspect that that kind of view is encouraged by the code of conduct proposed in the order. I have read the draft code of conduct which has been sent to local authorities in Northern Ireland. There is not much in the code of conduct that hon. Members would object to. However, implicit in its being sent to local authorities is the view that people are not observing the terms contained in the code. I am sure that the Whips would not have

allowed such a draft code to be distributed for this place. It seems to be based on the principle that each councillor must take every decision for his or herself and they should not listen to their parties, to which they should be loyal and which allowed them to become elected on a manifesto.
The Minister would be wise to make it clear that councillors in Northern Ireland should not take offence because the code of conduct is being introduced. He must recognise that the vast majority of those involved in local government are upright and decent citizens who do a very difficult task for very little recompense and thanks.
I hope that the Minister will consider the point raised by the hon. Member for South Down who referred—in a different fashion than I shall—to the expenditure that can rightly be made by district councils on publicity, advertising and information. I will not rest my case on the issue of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. A planning department was used politically by the Minister in the Department of the Environment to refuse planning applications for the posters to which reference was made earlier. The clearest evidence for that can be seen from the fact that the department refused, with the Minister's encouragement, planning permission for the "Ulster Says No" banners in areas where permission was granted for more offensive posters and banners, even in areas that were downright dangerous from the point of view of the traffic. It is clear that the planning applications were turned down because of political motivation.

Mr. Trimble: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as, under the legislation, permission for an advertisement of that nature can be turned down only on amenity or road safety grounds, it was clearly unlawful for political considerations of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) to enter into the decision? The Minister acted illegally in that matter.

Mr. Robinson: The Minister can make his excuses later, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There was no doubt in local government circles that the Department was being used politically. As we are considering a code of conduct for councillors, perhaps there should be a code of conduct for Northern Ireland Office Ministers.

Mr. Needham: If the hon. Gentleman believes that I have behaved illegally, it was up to him and his friends to take the Department to court. However, during the time that I have been in Northern Ireland, I have always permitted hon. Members to stick their posters on to every available tree and on the back of every conceivable road sign, and there they remain. In fact, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), since the past three elections, still in full colour adorns the byways of Northern Ireland. The posters are never taken down by the hon. Gentleman and his agents. They are all there totally illegally. I am quite convinced that, when it comes to the election, the hon. Gentleman will take on board the arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) so that we will not see every lamp post covered in those posters. They are sometimes dangerous. Until now, I have let them stay because I thought that they were part of electoral practice in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Robinson: Although it will brighten up his morning as he travels to work, the Minister will not find my face smiling down at him from the lamp posts, because in Belfast—the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin


Smyth) will confirm this—there is a practice of putting our posters on boards which are attached to telegraph poles. These are taken down—they are costly—after an election is out of the way.

Rev. Ian Paisley: If the Minister goes to North Antrim, he will not find that atrocious poster that has been issued in the House tonight. The people who put up posters in Northern Ireland happen to be those in the Workers party, which still has posters up from two European elections past. As in my hon. Friend's constituency, we all receive a letter from the Minister's Department telling us to take down those posters. In North Antrim we carry out the same practice. We put posters on board, then take them down and use the boards at the next election.
Will my hon. Friend go with the Minister to North Antrim, find all those posters and tell me the locality of them? I should be very grateful to go there and put up new posters over them for the next election which I shall contest against one of the Minister's female candidates.

Mr. Robinson: I am sure that my hon. Friend will probably find that an awful lot of his posters go astray during the election. People will take them down so that they can frame them and put them in their houses and have them for ever and a day.
On the section dealing with the prohibition of political publicity, I have some concern about what exactly the Minister is attempting to catch under it. The order, in tight terminology, indicates that
In determining whether material falls within the prohibition regard shall he had to the content and style.
It goes on to state:
whether the material refers to a political party or to persons identified with a political party or promotes or opposes a point of view on a question of political controversy".
That seems to be the basis upon which the Minister's officials would take any such decision. Very few decisions on services for local government, for example, would not be taken by a political party and not be opposed by another political party. Are we in Northern Ireland not allowed to give information to the ratepayer about facilities which clearly would be identified with the political party that put forward those proposals and which carried them through the council? If that is how tight the legislation may be, it will be a retrograde step. The loser will be the ratepayer, who will not properly find out about the services in his or her area.
I have some concern about the prohibition notices, but, in effect, they could turn out to be useful in local government in Northern Ireland. One of the great problems that many of us have had in local government in the past is knowing whether, at the end of the day, the Department, under section 115 of the existing Act, would approve the council spending money for a certain purpose. When councils write to the Department, or to the local government auditor, they get vague answers, if, indeed, they get an answer at all. Certainly they will not get a quick answer.
Will the Minister say whether, if a council were to notify the local government auditor that it intended, before a certain date, to spend ratepayers' money for a particular purpose, and if by that date the local government auditor had not issued a prohibition order under article 8(2)(a), the council could therefore assume that it had approval to proceed, and, if it did so, that no legal action or surcharge would follow? If the Minister can

respond positively in that respect, many councils in Northern Ireland will view that as an advantage in the legislation. Certainly it would help in terms of giving guidance to them so that they do not get surcharged in the future.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I shall make my normal protest about Orders in Council, and tonight I make it with feeling because there have been four speakers and we have one and a half hours to consider an order which will fundamentally change local government in Northern Ireland. It is nonsense to allow an hour and a half for such a subject and for such changes. It is absolutely ridiculous. The Minister will have some difficulty in answering some of the questions put to him. I do not think that he will get round to that. In the circumstances, I shall keep my remarks as short as possible.
There are 24 articles in the order which refer to compulsory competitive tendering. No one has any objection to public money, whether it be tax or rate money, being spent properly. My party would support a policy to spend it in the most economical manner. But it should be introduced not for ideological reasons, but on the basis of the logic of the case. The Minister is optimistic about implementing this departure from existing practice by 10 April—three months from this evening. He will have some difficulty in doing so.
Article 19 extends the exclusion by providing that the council must not take into account
any political, industrial or sectarian affiliations or interests of contractors or their directors, partners of employees".
That liberal sentiment would doubtless be laudable in the rest of the United Kingdom, but in Northern Ireland it means that a council could be obliged to accept a tender from a front organisation which has been known to be operated by a paramilitary grouping. It will have no option but to take that tender and to consider it. That is the greatest threat to the policy of introducing compulsory competitive tendering. It is more than likely in certain council areas that that could open the door to paramilitary involvement, either directly through bogus firms, or indirectly through intimidation. It is not impossible that we would get a CCT war breaking out between rival paramilitary groups, bent on extending their geographical area of influence, and on increasing their financial return to get weapons and so forth.
We would welcome the establishment of a scheme to allow councils to provide financial help in the event of an emergency or disaster. It would have been better if the word in the order was "shall" rather than "may". Surely council officials and councillors are quite capable of looking after matters without having to go back to the Department every time for permission.
Article 27 on the promotion of home safety is welcome, but it is spoiled by the realisation that no new money will be coming from the Department to implement it properly. There is a strong possibility that, unless finance is made available, that excellent idea will fail.
The Minister and other hon. Members referred to article 29, which introduces a code of practice for local government. Although the Minister will not have time to answer me, I should like to know why he has introduced the code. Many councils in Northern Ireland have


standing orders and behave properly. It is only fair to them for the Minister to tell us what councils caused him to decide on a code of conduct.
Article 31 refers to the election of chairmen. It has been known for years in Northern Ireland that confusion appears to preside at the annual general meeting of councils, particularly in those areas where political divisions are balanced. Can the Minister explain how the order will change that? We will wait to see what effects it has in the future.
Will article 36 remove any meaningful function from elected representatives when it comes to making appointments to their councils? A letter about that change was sent to every district council clerk, but it was not sent to hon. Members. We were sent the order and the explanatory documentation, but the district clerks received a letter about building control and environmental health services. However, the order makes no reference to either of those functions. The second paragraph of the letter states:
First, it may be helpful it I explain that the draft Order does not refer by name to either Building Control or Environmental Health. The Order merely amends and expands that section of the Local Government Act
It is grossly impolite of the Northern Ireland Office to send out a copy of the order to us, the legislators—an order that will be passed by the House, even by this bad procedure—without making us aware of the thinking behind that article.
Article 47 refers to the chief electoral officer. Could the Minister clear up the confusion that seems to exist in Northern Ireland about the powers of that officer? To whom is that officer responsible? Who will oversee and monitor the way in which he performs his duties? Perhaps the Minister will write to me about that.
I object strongly to the proposal in article 38, which gives the local government auditor power to interfere in the day-to-day running of councils. It is obviously the duty of councillors to make decisions and to bear responsibility for them. How will the auditor be made aware of the decisions to which he would object? Who will play the role of informant? Will one of his deputies monitor the financial affairs of each council? Will council officers become informers for the auditor? If that happens, it will cause a lot of bad feeling in councils between officials and councillors.
I shall conclude because of the lateness of the hour.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) said about the Order-in-Council procedure.
The order introduces radical changes in local government in Northern Ireland and introduces the concept of competitive tendering. When those changes were introduced for England, Wales and Scotland they were subject to days and days of debate, which took up pages and pages of the Official Report. Hon. Members representing other parts of the United Kingdom were able to discuss the changes in Second Reading debates. They were able to have a Committee stage, to move amendments, to have a Report stage and a debate on Third Reading. Contemptuously, we are left with one and a half hours in which to debate an order of 43 pages. I have

protested myself on the Floor of the House about the way in which the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives are being treated. The Government are guilty of callously denying to the Ulster people their fundamental parliamentary right of being able, through their Members of Parliament, to move amendments to this order or any other measure affecting Northern Ireland.
In effect, Northern Ireland Ministers are throwing on the Table of the House a legislative measure, and saying to the parliamentary representatives of the people of Ulster that they can either take it or leave it. I intensely dislike that attitude. It is not something that one would expect in a democracy or in what is regarded as the mother of Parliaments. I cannot see why the Government adamantly refuse, even at this late stage in the life of the Parliament, to give justice and democracy to the people of Northern Ireland. They say to the politicians representing seats in the Province that they should talk with their parliamentary constitutional colleagues to get political progress, but the Government have it in their power to give, at a stroke, real democracy to the people of Northern Ireland, but they flatly refuse to do so. I know from talking to them that the people of Ulster resent the way in which they are being treated. They expect citizens of Northern Ireland to be treated like the citizens of any other part of the United Kingdom.
I regret that the Government refuse to do this. In the coming election, the people of Northern Ireland, and certainly the people of North Down, where there is a Tory candidate, will have the opportunity to vote for democracy and the rights of the people or for the status quo—this form of colonial government. The latter is what they will be voting for if they vote for the Tory candidate who is opposing me in my constituency. That is an admirable choice for the people to have, and it will be available in other constituencies. People in Northern Ireland will use their vote wisely to make a protest and to make it in the best, most fair and democratic manner.
If I had the right and the power to do so, I would amend the order, because local government in Northern Ireland needs to be vested with greater power to deal with, for instance—I shall pick only one item because time is short—environmental blight. An example is the scandalous situation in my constituency, where the owner of Geddis farm, at Crawfordsburn, an area of great scenic beauty and close by Crawfordsburn country park which attracts thousands of visitors every year, uses his land as a dump.
I invite everyone in the House and the media to visit Crawfordsburn to see the eyesore that Geddis's farm presents to everyone who lives in the area and to everyone who travels along the road past the farm. It is a downright disgrace and an insult to all those who are concerned to preserve the beauty of the area. I have urged the Government to vest the property because I think that that is the only way in which such an appalling nuisance can be brought to an end.
I tabled a question to the Minister in which I asked him to vest the property. I cannot remember his exact words but his answer was in the negative. It is with the utmost sincerity and fervour that I make a further appeal to the Minister to vest the property. I do so on behalf of residents and everyone else who is concerned about the environment.
It is clear that the owner of the farm, Mr. Geddis, is trying to blackmail long-suffering residents into agreeing to a housing development. That is what he wants. If he


succeeds, he will be prepared to clear the rubbish, the dirt, the filth and all the vehicles that are littered throughout the farm, including a vehicle which has "knackery" written across it. He has said that he will make an application that there be a knackery on the farm. That is designed to annoy the residents even further. It is clear that he wishes to force them into agreeing to a housing development. I have urged residents not to give way to blackmail and threats.
On Saturday or Sunday night, Mr. Geddis dumped a dead animal—I believe a donkey—and it is in full view of the people who pass by the farm. It is no longer a joke. People should not be able to treat other residents with such impunity. It is an appalling situation that must be rectified without further delay.
I ask the media to take an interest. If the media were to focus their cameras on the farm and shine the limelight upon it, Mr. Geddis might be persuaded to clear the rubbish. As things stand, he will not do anything. On behalf of all those whom I represent and of others outside my constituency who visit Crawfordsburn country park, or who pass along the road that is adjacent to it, I make a further plea to the Minister. I ask him to see what he can do to bring the nuisance to an end.
There is no time to debate all the articles in the order. I shall conclude by asking the Government to re-examine local government in Northern Ireland. Let us have a full survey. We need not piecemeal legislation but radical change, but that must take place with the introduction of a Stormont Assembly or power that will have the authority to bring Ministers and civil servants before it to question them and examine policy and what is happening in the name of the people of Northern Ireland. Failing that, or until that happens, I make one further appeal: a Select Committee should be established to deal with Northern Ireland affairs. That is something that we need desperately. That would enable the parliamentary representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to thrash out the various issues that have been raised this evening.

Mr. Needham: This has been a wide, varied and fascinating debate on local authority provision in Northern Ireland. Virtually no stone in any corner of the Province remained unturned.
The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) made an elegant electioneering speech about colonial government in the Province, which he slightly undermined when he spoke about Mr. Geddis's farm. That farm is a disgrace and a tip. No one could have tried harder than the hon. Gentleman and I—and everybody living locally—to do something about it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is because we have democratic procedures and the rule of law that we have to abide by the judgment of the court. If we had a colonial regime, no doubt the matter would have been dealt with much more expeditiously than either the hon. Gentleman or I have managed to achieve. I give him my further guarantee that I will, once again, consider what can be done.
I shall slip as quickly as possible through the many varied questions raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe). He asked how article 21 would deal with the danger of paramilitaries in compulsory competitive tendering. We understand the difficulties and

dangers, which is why article 21 gives the Department special powers to deal with that. We shall all have to look closely at how it works in practice.
On article 29, the hon. Gentleman asked about those councils that have standing orders. I agree that many councils in Northern Ireland have excellent standing orders, but the point of the article is to deal with those that have not.
The point of article 36 is that, in our judgment, a business ratepayer should have the same rights as a local elector when it comes to looking at the books. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the building regulations, the environmental health offices and the Department of the Environment letter that he said had been sent out. I am sure that my officials will have listened carefully to his remarks. They have to listen carefully almost every day, in the privacy of my office, to my remarks about the language they use in the letters that they send. I am sure that they will have equally listened to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As to the matter of the chief electoral officer, and the question of to whom he is responsible, the hon. Gentleman was right to say that I would not know. I shall write to him. Indeed, I asked that very question only two days ago.
On the question of how local government will determine what is spent by a council beyond its remit, that is a matter for the local government auditor by reference to the relevant statute. I am sure that chief executives and clerks, who have a close working relationship with the local government auditor and a good knowledge of the law, will be able to advise councillors if they go beyond their powers.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: We would not wish there to be any confrontation between chief officers and councillors. That would be detrimental to the running of the council.

Mr. Needham: I understand that point, and it is something that we must all bear in mind.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that local government has little power. I agree. I make no bones about the fact that I should like local authorities to have more powers. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) cited the reasons why that is not the case. I do not believe that it is possible to expand those powers, other than by agreement with all the main political parties in the Province, probably in the context of a wider political settlement.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East raised the question of a majority. Of course a majority is fine provided that it is in a plural political system in which majorities can change. When majorities are determined by one community or one tribe, after a while the minority becomes fed up because its views are never expressed. It does not matter whether that is in the east or the west of the Province. The elliptical message of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), who is listening to my words with such care, is not necessarily confined to competitive tendering. I accept that competitive tendering needs to be carefully monitored. The Department and the councils will have to work closely together to monitor how it works in practice.
As to not meeting the specification and having to refer back for an additional contract, it does not appear to me


to say much for the contract terms—but that is an important practical point, and I will consider it and return to it.
As to what amounts to political publicity, the Government will introduce a code of practice which I hope will make the situation clear.
Reference was made to the local government auditor and how much money can be spent. If the auditor has not advised councils that they may spend money under section 115, and does not issue a prohibition order by a given date, on that basis the council may proceed. However, I cannot tell the House what the local government auditor may decide to pre-empt.
As to the proposal to amend section 115 to provide for benefit being commensurate with the payments made, it will be a matter for councils to determine the level of expenditure. It will fall to the local government auditor to decide whether he agrees. If he does not, he will let the council know. That returns to the point I made about the need for officials to work closely together.
The hon. Member for South Down raised a number of points. He welcomed some aspects of the order and berated others. I understand why he does not welcome compulsory competitive tendering, but, having listened to his argument, I cannot for the life of me understand why refuse collection should not be contracted out.
I ask right hon. and hon. Members to consider the current standard of refuse collection in the Province. If that is the best that can be done by those employed by local authorities, there is every argument for giving an opportunity to outside private contractors, provided that there are sufficient safeguards and specifications built into their contracts.
Eighty per cent. of services contracted out in the rest of the United Kingdom have stayed in-house. The hon. Member for South Down said it was a matter of passing money around, because reducing wages meant reducing the opportunities for people to spend and to save money. Money saved by councils, hospitals, education authorities and the civil service means that there is more money left in the public purse to spend on other services. If, as I said in the previous debate, the argument centres on low wages, those low wages have to be picked up through the tax or family credits system, rather than taken out on the ratepayer—who, after all, is the consumer who pays the money for those services to be provided.
The hon. Member for South Down asked about employment for local people in those services. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) may know better, being a greater expert on the social chapter than I, but I have the feeling that trying to employ local people in particular areas for particular jobs infringes the social chapter, and would not be allowed under European directives.
I should have thought that in a reasonable democratic society, services should be competed for, and I do not accept that that in any way undermines the role of councillors. It allows the councillor to stand back a bit and to ensure that services are provided efficiently, to the highest quality, and in the best interests of the ratepayers whom he has been elected to serve.
The hon. Gentleman referred to environmental health and building regulations. I mentioned the value-for-money studies that are to take place. I agree that we need to get on with them, and that a decision needs to be made.
The hon. Member for South Down expressed the hope that the increased economic powers being given to councils would not replace in any way the efforts of the Industrial Development Board and the Local Economic Development Unit. My answer to that is: they had better not. If either organisation imagines that it has an excuse to do less, that would fly in the face of everything that the Government propose, which is to increase the involvement of the partnership. I trust that it will give councils greater leverage in achieving that.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about proportionality, but I hope that he will, on reflection, understand the practical difficulties to which it can give rise.
Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland, where some representatives believe in holding the ballot box in one hand and the Armalite in the other, it is very difficult to find sensible ways in which the amount of cross-community activity in councils could be increased if proportionality were forced on them. Having examined the arguments carefully, I do not believe that that would help us to build on what is already working well in Northern Ireland: many councils are working together closely and harmoniously. Some slightly impolite comments have been made about Belfast, but I do not believe that it will be long before Belfast follows, and I feel that it should be encouraged in that regard.

Mr. Trimble: The Minister will recall that, a number of years ago, Belfast council—which is in the habit of putting members of parties other than the majority party on committees—commissioned a survey of experience in England and Wales. That survey revealed that Belfast's record in regard to sharing out posts was better than that of England and Wales.

Mr. Needham: I do not think that it is very valuable to criticise one council or another. My concern is for all councils in Northern Ireland to work together as closely as they can. There has already been a dramatic change, and I believe that that process of change will continue.
Banners and publicity have been mentioned. Graffiti is a problem in Northern Ireland; I have examined that problem very closely, as did my predecessor, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), and I must say that I could see no practical way out of it.
I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is going to take down all his posters; that will make it unnecessary for me to send him the bill that I have been running up over the past six and a half years for taking down all the posters on the back of all the road signs around his constituency. He may, of course, be so busy with his books when he is travelling that he has not noticed the very efficient poster campaign which has been undertaken on his behalf, and which has involved a large number of Northern Ireland road signs; during the last election, it even covered some in my area.
Let me deal with some of the other points raised by the hon. Member for South Down. I do not believe that there will be any need for redundancies. Yes, the draft regulations will be circulated among all councils and


interested parties for their comments. The hon. Member for Belfast, East asked about timing. I think that it will be towards the end of 1993 before the first tranche can go out.
The hon. Member for South Down talked about the delay by the local government staff commission in drawing up the employment and appointment procedures. I accept his criticism. This is a difficult matter and we must ensure that we get it right and secure agreement; but we shall act as quickly as we can.
I hoped that the hon. Member for Wigan would do rather better than the daft suggestion made by his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who, in the opening debate, unveiled proposals for an "unemployment chapter" for Northern Ireland. What we heard from the hon. Member for Wigan, however, was the pay-up-to-the-trade-union chapter. In my judgment, competitive tendering means giving the ratepayer better value for money. Is the hon. Gentleman interested in the consumer, who pays, or in the unions, who currently pay the Labour party? I believe that we should try to introduce a system in Northern Ireland that provides the ratepayer with the maximum service at the minimum cost. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he often says that the ratepayers have not much money, and we are talking about the most deprived area of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman asked about fair employment, and inquired whether the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 placed a statutory duty on district councils to ensure that the rights of minority groups were protected. The Act bites with equal force on both the public sector and the private sector and places a duty on district councils not to enter into contracts with unqualified employers. That is a clear and precise statutory requirement. To overlay it with a further requirement would be confusing. It is very difficult to see how such a provision could be interpreted or applied consistently across the board beyond what we already do.
Although the provisions of the order do not go as far as hon. Members would like—in some instances by giving more powers to local authorities—while going too far in other respects over the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering, I believe that overall they represent the right step for local government in the Province at the moment and that they will be welcomed by the vast majority of district councils and their officials in Northern Ireland. I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 43.

Division No. 75]
[11.25 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Amess, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dover, Den


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dunn, Bob


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Emery, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Fallon, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burns, Simon
Forth, Eric


Burt, Alistair
Franks, Cecil


Butterfill, John
Freeman, Roger


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Gale, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chope, Christopher
Gregory, Conal





Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hague, William
Rowe, Andrew


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Harris, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hayes, Jerry
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Irvine, Michael
Shelton, Sir William


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kilfedder, James
Skeet, Sir Trevor


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Speller, Tony


Knapman, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stevens, Lewis


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Knox, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lightbown, David
Summerson, Hugo


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maclean, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mans, Keith
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Miller, Sir Hal
Waller, Gary


Mills, Iain
Ward, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Warren, Kenneth


Moss, Malcolm
Watts, John


Needham, Richard
Wheeler, Sir John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Norris, Steve
Wiggin, Jerry


Paice, James
Wolfson, Mark


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wood, Timothy


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth



Porter, David (Waveney)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Riddick, Graham
Mr. Tim Boswell.


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Mallon, Seamus


Beggs, Roy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Cousins, Jim
Morley, Elliot


Cryer, Bob
Paisley, Rev Ian


Dalyell, Tam
Robertson, George


Dixon, Don
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Salmond, Alex


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Short, Clare


Foster, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Foulkes, George
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Stott, Roger


Gordon, Mildred
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Haynes, Frank
Trimble, David


Hood, Jimmy
Vaz, Keith


Illsley, Eric
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Leadbitter, Ted
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lewis, Terry



McFall, John
Tellers for the Noes:


McGrady, Eddie
Mr. William Ross and


McMaster, Gordon
Mr. Clifford Forsythe.


McNamara, Kevin

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (Standing Committees on European Community documents),

MILK

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9997/91, relating to additional rules on the


common market organisation in milk and milk products in respect of drinking milk; and supports the Government in its intention to secure fair terms of competition for United Kingdom milk processors as well as a wider choice of available products for consumers.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Social Security Administration Bill [Lords], the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords], the Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords], the Social Security (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords], the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Bill [Lords] and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bills have been read a second time.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

MEDICINAL PRODUCTS: PRESCRIPTION BY NURSES ETC. BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Medicinal Products: Prescription by Nurses etc. Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

HEALTH

Ordered,
That Mr. Jerry Hayes be discharged from the Health Committee and Sir Anthony Durant be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

AGRICULTURE

Ordered,
That Mr. Keith Bradley be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Mr. Gavin Strang be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — Weston-super-Mare Relief Road

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic for coming to the House tonight to apply himself to the important problem of the relief road—that is what I call it—for Weston-super-Mare.
I last raised this and kindred matters in an Adjournment debate headed "Weston-super-Mare and Banwell (Roads)" on 20 November 1986. I shall quote, first from something that I said, to remind the Minister that I shall not be deterred from raising the subject again and again until our road is put right. I said then:
I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that he will not have to meet me too often on this subject if he can say something profitable to me tonight."—[Official Report 20 November 1986; Vol. 105, c. 792.]
I concede that the Government have contributed to the first parts of the road, and there has been some improvement in the traffic. That has not been helped by the need for digging up, over no less than three months, the other main access into the town centre.
My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) who was then the Minister for Roads and Traffic—the important Government post now held by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope)—said:
My hon. Friend will not need reminding that, with the exception of the M5 motorway, which is the Department's responsibility, all the roads in his constituency are the responsibility of Avon county council. I note his suggestion that we should trunk a further section of road, but at present, and perhaps for the foreseeable future, it is for the county council alone to determine the priority to be accorded to any improvements considered necessary for its roads.
The Minister continued:
The Government are often accused of interfering with local authorities and of wishing to interfere more. I think that this is one of the occasions when, in general, it might be right for Government not to interfere, although I can understand any hon. Member asking why we have not come in with bigger boots and perhaps some financial inducement for the county council to change its order of priorities. A factual description of the situation, however, is that it is up to people in the county to fight for the right ordering of priorities. I hope that this debate will have a valuable role … in that.
The Minister's penultimate paragraph was:
Parliament has given the county council full responsibility for the local road network, and it would not be appropriate for central Government to interfere in its assessment of the relative priorities of the many schemes contained in its structure plan."—[Official Report, 20 November 1986; Vol. 105, c. 796-98.]
My purpose in quoting is to paint the scene that presented itself to us, perfectly reasonably, after that debate. Again, I must be grateful to the director of highways, transport and engineering at Avon county council, Mr. Bracewell, for setting out fully the situation about stages VC and VI of the Weston-super-Mare relief road. He says:
These stages of the scheme together with Stage IVB are those remaining to complete the strategy of construction of a dual carriageway from Junction 21 on the M4 into the Town Centre. Not until these stages are built will it be possible for traffic to divert off the full length of the existing road and provide the essential environmental relief to residents whose homes front onto the A370"—


and to allow the traffic to flow at a decent and respectable speed even at the height of the summer season and to keep the commerce and industry of our town alive.
Mr. Bracewell continues:
The County Council decided that it would make a joint bid for Stages IVB, VC and VI in its TSG bid for a commencement in 1992/93. The total value of this bid was £12,406,000 and the 93/93 expenditure was estimated at £2,088,000.
The objective was to complete construction of the whole PDR early in 1995 and hence maintain the target date set previously despite slippage on other earlier stages. The County Council made this bid its first priority in its submission. The second priority was for a scheme known as the Avonmouth Link. This is a small, but essential, section of a larger scheme being promoted by the DTp to provide better access off the motorway at Junction 18 and to relieve Avonmouth of the worst effects of heavy industrial traffic. It is the County Council's view that this scheme should he promoted and fully funded by the D.Tp as part of their scheme. The County Council have tried by various means, (including a deputation) to persuade the Minister for Roads that this is the case. It has been unsuccessful in these endeavours and hence, at a late stage, was obliged to include it as a bid for TSG in the 1992/93 submission. This has been done to match the timescale for construction of the DTp's own scheme. The County Council had pleaded that any settlement on this scheme should, given the special circumstances, not be at detriment to its bid for funds for other projects. The total cost of the Avonmouth Link is £2,381,000.
I have no desire or suggestion about what should happen to the Avonmouth bypass. I am sure—and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) assures me—that the scheme has priority and is an urgent job. I was astonished to read in a glossy brochure produced by the Department of Transport and headed "South West Regional Brief"—I suggest that a few miles of pavement could have been built for the cost of producing the brochure—under "The Trunk Road Programme" the following sentence:
and to provide a trunk road link from M5 to Avonmouth Docks, enabling motorway traffic to bypass the community of Avonmouth.
So even the Minister's own Department actually believes that the bypass for Avonmouth is a trunk road. We have all believed that the Avon link road is a trunk road. The entire Avon road programme is being messed up because the Department will not accept that the main roads—the national roads—in the county should be paid for by it. I am sorry to say that I believe that, by forcing the county council to put in for transport supplementary grant, the Department has been guilty of very substantial trickery.
Now to the positive and more important aspect of the southern end of the county: Weston-super-Mare is the largest town in the old county of Somerset, yet it does not seem to be getting the attention from the Department of Transport that it deserves. We have a new railway station, paid for partly by the county council, but the high-speed trains cannot stop there because the platform is not long enough. We have half the new road, but one cannot get to it, because the essential first part, to which I have referred tonight, is not now to be completed for four years.
I have letters from the district council, the mayor and charter trustees and I know from my discussions with business men, hoteliers and those who manage our tourist industry that visitors do not expect to come off the motorway and drive straight into a traffic jam. I do not want to paint a picture of permanent disruption because—one has to be honest—the traffic does flow, but the newly completed road is now extremely busy. My hon.

Friend the Minister would be amazed at how quickly the new road becomes congested, to put it mildly, at peak hours.
There are those who would like to come to Weston-super-Mare for the very good reason that it is a splendid place, but if they realise that their factories are about to be sited half an hour away from the motorway—even though they know that it is only a couple of miles —they will not come. They will go to places with better roads.
In the previous debate, I referred to the impact in sheer economic terms of the traffic delays in Banwell, for example. Within months of our building a bypass for that village, there would be a financial reward for the United Kingdom. The whole question of traffic in rapidly developing areas such as mine must be tackled in a much more determined manner.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not tell me that Avon has done well in a league table or that we have got more than our fair share in some way. I contend that the share is not big enough for anybody.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) was Secretary of State for Transport, he announced—much to my pleasure and with my great support—a doubling of expenditure on roads. But where is the money? It is not forthcoming. OK, there is to be some widening of the motorways but, frankly, they should have been built wider in the first instance, and many of us told the Ministry of Transport, as it then was, that that was so. I was born and brought up in the county through which the M5 runs. I remember telling Sir Peter Agnew—all that time ago—that it should have been a three-lane road and, today, it is being made into a three-lane road.
I hope that some of my remarks may be passed to the Treasury because, although my hon. Friend the Minister will be too loyal to say so, I am sure that that is the source of our problems. In the age of the motor car and road transport, it is no longer acceptable for the Government to sit back and tell us that our road is to be given priority, then to deprive our county of that priority and cheat over the money, spending county money on roads for which it is responsible. A review of the trunk roads system, paying special attention to the problems of Weston-super-Mare and our area, is long overdue.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has argued persuasively the case for completing the final stages of the Weston-super-Mare primary distributor road. He has eloquently represented the views of his constituents, and the House can have no doubt about the strength of local feeling on this issue in Weston-super-Mare.
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is essential that the new road should be completed. Until the final part is finished, the full benefit of the investment in the project and the environmental benefits in the residential areas on both sides of the existing A371 will not be realised. The reason for not accepting the final three stages of the road for transport supplementary grant next year has nothing to do with the Government's view of the scheme's priority in relation to other Avon county council proposals.
The problem that we faced in deciding which schemes to include in the settlement was simply one of resources.


We received bids from highway authorities for more than 170 major schemes, 160 of which were genuine candidates for grant. Together they would have cost nearly £250 million in 1992–93. However, we could afford only 37 major new starts at a cost of £60 million—

Mr. Wiggin: Peanuts.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend may say "Peanuts", but I am sure that he understands that, with only 37 major new starts and 108 highway authorities, it is not possible for the Minister responsible for roads to please them all.
Many good schemes had to be left out and it was impossible to avoid disappointing many highway authorities with schemes that they believed were important. My hon. Friend's case is for even more public investment in the nation's road infrastructure. I share in the belief that there is a strong case for investing in roads. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and other Conservative Members take comfort from the fact that only the Conservative party is committed to such investment. The other parties, which are not represented in the Chamber this evening, believe that there should be a reduction rather than an increase in the investment in our road infrastructure.
It is a feature of the transport supplementary grant system that if we agree to fund a major scheme with grant, one that will cost over £1 million, we commit ourselves to supporting it not just for the first year, but right through to completion, and that includes supporting any reasonable increases in the cost. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare will agree with the logic of that. Without that reassurance, highway authorities would find it very difficult to embark on the larger schemes that they often initiate, some of which take several years to complete.
On the other side of the coin, by accepting the more costly and longer-term schemes in one year, we effectively pre-empt the funds available for new starts in future. That is why we had £900 million available for local road capital investment in 1992–93, but over half of that was already committed to major schemes started in earlier years. Demands also had to be met for other essential expenditure, for example, on maintenance of roads and bridges and on local road safety schemes.
Considering that the total bids in all categories amounted to almost £1·6 billion, it will be clear that difficult decisions were unavoidable. We needed to assess not only the relative priorities of 108 highway authorities, but to judge the correct overall balance between one category of expenditure and another. In the circumstances, £60 million for new major schemes was the best that we could do. Of course that is only a fraction of what highway authorities were hoping for, and to produce a reasonable list of approved schemes from this amount was no easy task. To avoid overloading future settlements with commitments inherited from previous years, it was regrettably necessary to limit the number of larger new schemes accepted for grant.
Unfortunately, the final phase of the Weston-super-Mare primary distributary road was one of those which we could not fit in. The net total cost of the proposals was estimated at £12.4 million. Some £2 million would have been spent next year. Ironically that is a prime example of

those schemes now in progress which, because of their size and duration, are limiting the funds available for new major projects. It should not be forgotten that my Department has already demonstrated its commitment to the overall project. We have funded stage 1 which was finished in June 1991 at a cost of £3·621 million. That completed the link from Hutton Moor road to the town centre.
Stages 5A and 5B were accepted for TSG, and construction on both started in financial year 1990–91. Stage 5A extends Herluin way to the A371 at the southern edge of the town. It was due for completion in December 1991 and was finished early. Stage 5B is the A371 Locking Moor road diversion. The contract for that has just been let and is due for completion in January 1994. The estimated cost of the two schemes together is £9·93 million. That is no mean sum of money. The Department of Transport has therefore already committed a minimum of £13–5 million to that important roads project in my hon. Friend's constituency.
Despite the rather confusing numbering, stages 4A, 3, and 2 were finished in 1982, 1987 and 1989 respectively. Those early stages were funded by Avon county council, with contributions from developers, and without calling on the Department of Transport for financial support.
My hon. Friend has reminded me that Avon county council believes that the Department has in some way forced the Avonmouth relief road upon it. I can understand its feelings of frustration in getting approval to a road that it thinks should be funded as part of a larger scheme in the national trunk roads programme, while support is withheld from its top priority TSG scheme, but I certainly do not accept the charges of cheating. I can only reiterate that the Weston-super-Mare primary distributor road was left out of the settlement not because we questioned its importance but simply because we could not afford it on this occasion. The Avonmouth relief road was included because it is another important scheme which, this year, we could afford. I am sure that my hon. Friend and other people in Avon would not have thanked me for saying that, because we could not afford the first priority scheme, we were not even prepared to consider whether we could afford the second priority scheme. That would have been perverse logic.
The Department's Avonmouth link scheme has been designed with the aim of solving the problems of congestion on the A4 at Avonmouth roundabout and queues of traffic on the M5 spur. Our proposals have recently been put to public inquiry and the inspector's report is awaited. It will need to be considered by Ministers before a decision on whether the scheme should go ahead is taken jointly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the the Environment.
Because of my involvement in that process, it would be improper for me to comment in detail on the Avonmouth scheme now, but I need to explain that, when the original proposals were subject to public consultation in 1989, there was widespread local opposition to the inclusion of a proposed flyover which would have carried traffic between the M5 and the A4 over the Avonmouth roundabout. In response to that, the flyover was omitted from the preferred route announced in November 1990. But, as a consequence, there as no longer any justification for constructing, as part of the Department's scheme, that part of the route which would have taken purely local


traffic, as opposed to trunk road traffic, out of Avonmouth village. In other words, that section now known as the Avonmouth relief road no longer served any trunk road purpose. Instead, it became only a bypass for Avonmouth village.
In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate for the Department to build the relief road as a trunk road or as a related side road. As I said to representatives who came to see me from the county council at the end of last year, it is not just my opinion off the top of my head or the opinion of my officials; it is confirmed legal opinion that it would not have been proper for the Department to fund the Avonmouth scheme any longer as a trunk road.
As a result, it was left to Avon county council to decide whether it should include the road in its programme and apply for TSG to fund it. I advised on that matter when representatives came to see me. Although the council had already included a bid for grant for the scheme in its transport policy and programme statement, it maintained its view that the Department should build it.
I suggest that the Avonmouth relief road is something of a red herring in a debate on the Weston-super-Mare

primary distributary road. The Avonmouth relief road is an important new road whose benefits are indisputable; and, to put it plainly, omitting it from the recent local roads capital settlement would not have left room for acceptance of the Weston-super-Mare primary distributor road.
I acknowledge the feeling in Weston-super-Mare that there is a pressing need to complete the primary distributary road as soon as possible. I assure my hon. Friend that local officials in my Department are continuing discussions with their opposite numbers in the county council and are looking at other ways of giving the scheme the fairest possible wind when we next look at the roads capital settlement. One thing is absolutely certain: for the road to be afforded, we must have a Government who are committed to major investment in our roads infrastructure. I am sure that, after my right hon. and hon. Friends have been successfully re-elected, we will again have a Government with a fresh mandate to continue our major expansion of roads investment.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.